Alabama Legislative Black Caucus, et al v. The State of Alabama, et al (PANEL)(LEAD)

Filing 203

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER as further set out in the opinion and order. A separate final judgment will follow. By Circuit Judge William H Pryor, Jr. entered on 12/20/2013. Before PRYOR, Circuit Judge, WATKINS, Chief District Judge, and THOMPSON, District Judge. (dmn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
ALABAMA LEGISLATIVE
BLACK CAUCUS, et al.,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
) CASE NO. 2:12-CV-691
v.
)
(Three-Judge Court)
)
THE STATE OF ALABAMA, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________ )
)
ALABAMA DEMOCRATIC
)
CONFERENCE, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
) CASE NO. 2:12-CV-1081
v.
)
(Three-Judge Court)
)
THE STATE OF ALABAMA, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before PRYOR, Circuit Judge, WATKINS, Chief District Judge, and THOMPSON,
District Judge.
PRYOR, Circuit Judge:
“There’s no perfect reapportionment plan. A reapportionment plan depends on what the
drafter wants to get, and he can draw them many, many, many ways.” Dr. Joe Reed, Chairman,
Alabama Democratic Conference. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 155, Aug. 9, 2013).

The Constitution of Alabama of 1901 requires the Alabama Legislature to
redistrict itself following each decennial census of the United States, Ala. Const. Art.
IX, §§ 199–200, but for a half century—from 1911 to 1961—the Legislature failed to
fulfill that duty. Then the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that this
abdication could be tolerated no longer, and it affirmed the judgment of this Court
that the Alabama Legislature had to be apportioned after each census based on the
principle of one person, one vote. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 568, 586, 84 S. Ct.
1362, 1385, 1394 (1964). The Supreme Court explained, “[T]he basic principle of
representative government remains, and must remain, unchanged—the weight of a
citizen’s vote cannot be made to depend on where he lives. Population is, of
necessity, the starting point for consideration and the controlling criterion for
judgment in legislative apportionment controversies.” Id. at 567, 84 S. Ct. at 1384.
After the decision in Reynolds v. Sims, the Legislature struggled to redistrict itself
and to satisfy the requirements of the federal Constitution. When the Alabama
Legislature failed to perform its duty to redistrict itself after the 1970 Census, this
Court adopted new district lines to protect the rights of the voters under the
Fourteenth Amendment. Sims v. Amos, 336 F. Supp. 924 (M.D. Ala. 1972). In the
1980s, the Legislature successfully redistricted itself only after it twice failed to obtain
administrative preclearance of its first redistricting plans, under section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c, and this Court then ordered Alabama
to hold a special election using the new districts, Burton v. Hobbie, 561 F. Supp. 1029,
2

1035 (M.D. Ala. 1983). In the 1990s, the Legislature again failed to redistrict itself,
and new districts were adopted instead by the Alabama judiciary. See Brooks v. Hobbie,
631 So. 2d 883, 884 (Ala. 1993).
After the 2000 and 2010 Censuses, the Legislature finally fulfilled its
responsibility to redistrict itself without any federal or judicial interference. See Montiel
v. Davis, 215 F. Supp. 2d 1279, 1281–82 (S.D. Ala. 2002). Both times, the Senate
adopted a redistricting plan for itself, and the House adopted a plan for itself. Each
chamber then, in turn, passed the plan adopted by the other chamber. And each time,
the governor signed the redistricting acts, and the state attorney general then obtained
administrative preclearance of the acts as required by the Voting Rights Act.
As the Legislature complied with Reynolds v. Sims and the Voting Rights Act,
black voters enjoyed increasing success in electing their preferred candidates for the
Alabama Legislature. In 1970, voters elected to the House of Representatives Fred
Gray and Thomas Reed, the first two black legislators since Reconstruction. (Ex.
SDX 448, 15). After the 1980 Census, voters elected 17 black candidates to the
House and three black candidates to the Senate. Id. After the 1990 Census, voters
elected 27 black candidates to the House and 8 black candidates to the Senate. Id.
After the 2000 Census, the Legislature adopted a redistricting plan that maintained 27
majority-black House districts and 8 majority-black Senate districts. Because most of
the majority-black districts were substantially underpopulated, the Legislature redrew
the districts by shifting more black voters into the majority-black districts to maintain
3

the same relative percentages of black voters in those districts. (Ex. CE 30; Ex. CE
32; Ex. APX 4; Ex. CE 34).
Legislative redistricting regularly provokes partisan controversies. In the
1990s, Republicans filed lawsuits to challenge the districts adopted by the Alabama
judiciary and favored by the Democrats, but those lawsuits failed. Brooks, 631 So. 2d
883; Sinkfield v. Kelley, 531 U.S. 28, 121 S. Ct. 446 (2000). After the 2000 Census, the
Democrat-controlled Legislature adopted districts that favored its partisan interests.
Montiel, 215 F. Supp. 2d at 1283. Republicans again challenged the districts in
litigation, but their lawsuits failed. See Gustafson v. Johns, 434 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1248–
49 (S.D. Ala. 2006); Montiel, 215 F. Supp. 2d at 1281–82.
When Republicans challenged the district lines adopted after the 2000 Census,
they targeted the systematic underpopulation of the majority-black districts, but State
officials and Democratic leaders successfully defended the population deviations as
“the product of the Democratic Legislators’ partisan political objective to design
Senate and House plans that would preserve their respective Democratic majorities.”
Montiel, 215 F. Supp. 2d at 1283. State officials and Democratic leaders presented
“abundant evidence . . . that black voters and Democratic voters in Alabama are
highly correlated.” Id. After the Republicans’ complaint of racial gerrymandering
failed, they filed another complaint that challenged the population deviations as an
unlawful partisan gerrymander, but that complaint failed because it was barred by res
judicata. Gustafson, 434 F. Supp. 2d at 1255–67. In a filing in the Supreme Court of
4

the United States, the Democratic leadership of the Legislature openly touted the
districts adopted in 2001 as a lawful partisan gerrymander that enabled black
legislators to serve in positions of unprecedented leadership. (Ex. SDX 448.)
The partisan gerrymander that protected Democratic control of the Legislature
collapsed in 2010 when Republicans gained supermajority control of both houses of
the Legislature, which then adopted new redistricting acts based on the 2010 Census.
2010 Ala. Acts No. 602 (House plan); id. No. 603 (Senate plan). The Republicancontrolled Legislature adopted district lines with smaller deviations in population
equality, which upended the partisan gerrymander adopted by the Democratcontrolled Legislature after the 2000 Census. Not surprisingly, that result did not sit
well with the Democratic leaders who filed these complaints. As a result, we must be
careful not to take one side in a partisan battle masquerading as a legal controversy;
our task is to evaluate whether the new redistricting Acts violate the Constitution or
federal law.
In these consolidated actions, Alabama has now come full circle. In the first
civil action, several plaintiffs—the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus, Bobby
Singleton, the Alabama Association of Black County Officials, Fred Armstead,
George Bowman, Rhondel Rhone, Albert F. Turner Jr., and Jiles Williams Jr.—
complain that the purpose and effect of the new districts is to dilute and isolate the
strength of black voters, in violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. In the second civil action, several other
5

plaintiffs—the Alabama Democratic Conference, Demetrius Newton, Framon
Weaver Sr., Stacey Stallworth, Rosa Toussaint, and Lynn Pettway—complain that the
purpose and effect of the new districts is to dilute the opportunities for minority
voters to participate in the political process and that the new districts are products of
racial gerrymandering. The plaintiffs in these actions, in contrast with the plaintiffs in
Reynolds, complain that the Legislature redistricted itself based on too little deviation in
population equality and paid too little attention to considerations of where voters live
based on the jurisdictional lines of counties and other subdivisions. They also
complain that the Legislature diluted the voting strength of black voters by moving
them into underpopulated majority-black districts, even though the Democratic
majority of the Legislature employed the same technique ten years earlier to maintain
the same relative percentages of black voters in those districts.
For the reasons explained in this memorandum opinion and order, we reject
these complaints. We DISMISS the claims of racial gerrymandering filed by the
Democratic Conference plaintiffs because they lack standing to maintain those claims;
in the alternative, we GRANT judgment in favor of the State defendants on the
claims of racial gerrymandering filed by the Democratic Conference plaintiffs. We
DISMISS as not justiciable the claim of vote dilution based on the local House
delegation in Jefferson County; in the alternative, we GRANT judgment in favor of
the State defendants on the claim of vote dilution based on the local House delegation

6

in Jefferson County. We GRANT judgment in favor of the State defendants on the
remaining claims in both actions.
I. BACKGROUND
We divide our discussion of the background in two parts. First, we explain the
procedural history of this matter. Second, we explain our findings of fact about the
creation of the new districts for the Alabama Legislature based on the testimony and
evidence introduced at a consolidated trial of these actions.
A. Procedural History
The Black Caucus plaintiffs filed a complaint against the State and Beth
Chapman, in her official capacity as the Secretary of State of Alabama. The complaint
asserted three counts: violation of the guarantee of one person, one vote under the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Const. Amend. XIV,
§ 2; dilution and isolation of the strength of black votes in violation of section 2 of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Const.
Amend. XIV, and the Fifteenth Amendment, U.S. Const. Amend. XV; and partisan
gerrymandering in violation of the First Amendment, U.S. Const. Amend. I. The
Black Caucus plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment and preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief on count one of their complaint.
The State defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay the
action until the Attorney General of Alabama, Luther Strange, obtained either
administrative or judicial preclearance of the new districts under section 5 of the
7

Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. We granted the motion of the State defendants
to stay the matter until either the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder,
or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia decided whether to
preclear the districts. After Attorney General Holder precleared the new districts, we
lifted the stay of the action and denied the motion to dismiss filed by the State
defendants. The State defendants then filed an answer to the complaint and a motion
for judgment on the pleadings with respect to all three counts.
After a hearing on the latter motions, the Democratic Conference plaintiffs
filed a complaint against the State; Robert Bentley, in his official capacity as the
Governor of Alabama; and Chapman, in her official capacity as the Secretary of State
of Alabama. The Democratic Conference plaintiffs asserted three counts: violation of
section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; racial gerrymandering in violation of the
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments; and violations of constitutional and statutory
rights under the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
After the Democratic Conference action was assigned to this three-judge court, we
determined that both the Black Caucus action and the Democratic Conference action
involve common questions of law and fact and consolidated them to avoid
unnecessary repetition and confusion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2).
On December 26, 2012, we denied the first motion for a partial summary
judgment filed by the Black Caucus plaintiffs with respect to count one, granted the
motion of the State defendants for a judgment on the pleadings as to count one,
8

denied the motion of the State defendants for a judgment on the pleadings as to count
two, and dismissed without prejudice count three of the complaint of the Black
Caucus plaintiffs. We granted the Black Caucus plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint “to allege more facts and constitutional grounds to support [their] claim of
political gerrymandering and to identify a judicial standard by which we can adjudicate
the claim.”
On March 13, 2013, Senator Gerald Dial and Representative Jim McClendon
filed an unopposed motion to intervene as defendants. Senator Dial and
Representative McClendon are the Chairpersons of the Permanent Legislative
Committee on Reapportionment of the State of Alabama. The Court granted the
motion to intervene.
After the Black Caucus plaintiffs timely filed an amended complaint with a new
count three entitled “Partisan Gerrymandering” and a second motion for a partial
summary judgment on that claim, we again denied their motion. The Black Caucus
plaintiffs responded to our denial of their motion with a motion to alter or amend our
order. The Black Caucus plaintiffs argued that we failed to state a reason for our
decision in contravention of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56(a) and 52(a)(2).
Although we denied the motion, we sua sponte vacated our previous order, again
denied the motion for a partial summary judgment, and substituted a new
memorandum opinion and order. We explained that the claim of partisan
gerrymandering filed by the Black Caucus plaintiffs failed to identify a judicial
9

standard by which we could adjudicate the claim and that, under any standard of
adjudication, the Black Caucus plaintiffs failed to explain how they are entitled to a
judgment in their favor as a matter of law. We also explained that the Black Caucus
plaintiffs failed to establish the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
The State defendants then moved for a partial summary judgment on count
three, and the Black Caucus plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider our denial of their
second motion for a partial summary judgment and a motion for a permanent
injunction. At a hearing on the pending motions, the Black Caucus plaintiffs
announced, for the first time, that count three encompassed two claims: an as-applied
challenge for partisan gerrymandering in violation of the First Amendment and a
facial challenge to the districts based on the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. We granted in part the motion for a partial summary
judgment and entered judgment in favor of the State defendants on the claim of
partisan gerrymandering and dismissed the claim under the Equal Protection Clause
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We also explained, in the alternative, that the
claim under the Equal Protection Clause failed on the merits. We denied the motion
for reconsideration and denied as moot the motion for a preliminary injunction.
The State defendants filed motions for summary judgments against the
remaining claims filed by the Black Caucus plaintiffs and the Democratic Conference
plaintiffs, and we denied those motions. We concluded that the State defendants had

10

failed to explain the absence of genuine issues of material fact or how they were
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
On August 8, 9, 12, and 13, 2013, we conducted a consolidated bench trial at
which the plaintiffs presented arguments and evidence about two distinct kinds of
claims. First, the plaintiffs argued that the State defendants had diluted the black vote
in Alabama in violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 4, 6,
Aug. 8, 2013). Second, the plaintiffs argued that the State defendants had engaged in
intentional discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments
when they drew the new districts. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 5, 6, Aug. 8, 2013). During the
trial, we substituted Jim Bennett for Beth Chapman as a defendant, in Bennett’s
official capacity as the new Secretary of State of Alabama. Demetrius Newton died
after the trial.
The State defendants responded that the redistricting plans violate neither
section 2 of the Voting Rights Act nor the Constitution. They argued that the
plaintiffs could not prove vote dilution because it is not possible to draw another
compact, majority-black district, (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 11, Aug. 8, 2013), and that the
Legislature acted with lawful motives, not with any unconstitutional racially
discriminatory purpose, (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 14, Aug. 8, 2013). The State defendants
argued that the Legislature adopted an overall deviation in population of 2 percent to
comply with the requirement of one person, one vote, under the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 12–13, Aug. 8, 2013). They
11

also argued that the Legislature preserved the majority-black districts with roughly the
same percentage of black voters to comply with the nonretrogression principle of
section 5 of the Voting Rights Act so as to obtain preclearance from the Attorney
General of the United States.
Although the Black Caucus plaintiffs and the Democratic Conference plaintiffs
both asserted claims under section 2, they framed their claims differently. The Black
Caucus plaintiffs argued that the State defendants diluted black voting strength across
the State by packing majority-black districts and ignoring traditional districting criteria,
including the preservation of county lines. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 4–6 Aug. 8, 2013). The
Black Caucus plaintiffs also asserted claims of local vote dilution in Madison County
based on the changes to Senate District 7 and in Jefferson County based on the
changes to the balance of members of the local delegation. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 5, Aug. 8,
2013). The Democratic Conference plaintiffs asserted claims of only local vote
dilution. They argued that the plans failed to create a majority-black House district in
Jefferson County and in Montgomery County and a minority opportunity Senate
district in Madison County. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 7–8, 11, Aug. 8, 2013).
The Black Caucus plaintiffs and Democratic Conference plaintiffs also made
different arguments in support of their claims of intentional discrimination in
violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The Black Caucus plaintiffs
argued that the Legislature discriminated on the basis of race when it drew the
districts to preserve the existing percentages of blacks in the majority-black districts
12

and that this discrimination could not survive strict scrutiny after the decision of the
Supreme Court in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, --- U.S. ---, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013).
(Trial Tr. vol. 1, 4–5, Aug. 8, 2013). The Democratic Conference plaintiffs argued
that the Legislature subordinated traditional redistricting criteria to racial criteria when
it drew the majority-black districts; that the impact of the redistricting plans falls more
heavily on minority voters; that the Republican-controlled Legislature had a desire to
cement its supermajority status by inadequately representing minorities in the
redistricting plans; and that the plans were drafted by a Republican consultant without
input from black legislators, were not provided to the public until May, and were
adopted in a special session of the Legislature. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 8–9, Aug. 8, 2013).
B. Findings of Fact
We divide our findings of fact in five parts. In the first part, we describe the
2010 Census data and the information that it conveyed about the population of the
State of Alabama. In the second part, we describe the 2001 districting plans and the
effects of the population shifts on those plans. In the third part, we describe the
redistricting process that followed the 2010 Census. In the fourth and fifth parts, we
discuss the evidence presented at trial; we first consider the evidence presented by the
plaintiffs and then consider the evidence presented by the State defendants.
1. The 2010 Census Data for the State of Alabama
Every ten years, the United States is required to make an “actual Enumeration”
of its residents. See U.S. Const. Art. I, § 2, cl. 3. Based on the results of the census,
13

each state must consider whether the methods it uses to elect its state officials comply
with the requirement of one person, one vote under the Equal Protection Clause. See
Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 568, 84 S. Ct. at 1385. This requirement applies to the election of
officials in Congress, state legislatures, and local governments.
Between 2000 and 2010, the overall population of Alabama grew by 7.48
percent. Although the absolute number of the white non-Hispanic population
increased, the percentage of the population composed of white non-Hispanic
residents decreased by 3.3 percent. The absolute numbers of the black and Native
American populations increased, but the percentages of the population composed of
black residents and Native American residents remained relatively constant. Only the
absolute number of the Hispanic population and the percentage of the population
composed of Hispanic residents increased between 2000 and 2010. The 2010 Census
reported that Alabama had 4,779,736 residents, including 3,204,402 white nonHispanic persons (67 percent), 1,244,437 black persons (26 percent), 25,907 Native
American persons (0.5 percent), and 185,602 Hispanic or Latino persons (3.9
percent). In 2000, Alabama had 4,447,100 residents, including 3,125,819 white nonHispanic persons (70.3 percent), 1,155,930 black persons (26 percent), 22,430 Native
American persons (0.5 percent), and 75,830 Hispanic persons (1.7 percent). (Ex.
NPX 325; Ex. NPX 326). The Court calculated the above percentages using the
population statistics of the U.S. Census Bureau that the plaintiffs provided. When

14

available, the Court elected to use the population data for each race that was identified
as that racial group alone.
Alabama comprises 67 counties, and three of the most populous counties are
Jefferson County, Madison County, and Montgomery County. According to the 2010
Census, Jefferson County had a total population of 658,466; a white population of
349,166; and a black population of 276,525. Between 2000 and 2010, the total
population of Jefferson County decreased by 3,581; the white population decreased by
35,473; and the black population increased by 15,917. (Ex. NPX 328; Ex. NPX 329).
In 2010, Madison County had a total population of 334,811; a white population of
228,280; and a black population of 80,376. Between 2000 and 2010, the total
population of Madison County increased by 58,111; the white population increased by
28,879; and the black population increased by 17,351. (Ex. NPX 328; Ex. NPX 331).
In 2010, Montgomery County had a total population of 229,363; a white population
of 90,656; and a black population of 125,477. Between 2000 and 2010, the total
population of Montgomery County increased by 5,853; the white population
decreased by 18,524; and the black population increased by 16,894. (Ex. NPX 328;
Ex. NPX 330).
The legislative power of Alabama is vested in the Alabama Legislature, which
consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Ala. Const. Art. IV, § 44.
Members of the Legislature are elected on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in
November, and they serve for terms of four years. Id. § 46. The next general election
15

will take place on November 4, 2014. The Senate has 35 members elected by singlemember voting districts. The House of Representatives has 105 members also elected
by single-member voting districts. Based on the 2010 Census data, the ideal Senate
district would have a total population of 136,564, and the ideal House district would
have a total population of 45,521. (Ex. SDX 402; Ex. SDX 406).
2. The 2001 Districting Plans
In this subsection, we review two aspects of the 2001 districting plans that are
relevant to this litigation. We explain that the districts established in 2001 were
severely malapportioned in the light of the population data from the 2010 Census, and
we describe the systematic underpopulation of the majority-black districts in the 2001
plans.
The new data from the 2010 Census revealed severe malapportionment of the
House districts established in 2001 for use in the 2002 election. The population in 80
of the 105 districts for the Alabama House of Representatives deviated from the ideal
population by more than 5 percent. (Ex. NPX 332). Of those malapportioned
districts, 22 deviated above or below the ideal population by more than 20 percent.
(Ex. NPX 332). The most malapportioned district was District 41, a majority-white
district in Shelby County, which was overpopulated by 60.76 percent. (Ex. NPX 332).
Two other majority-white districts that included portions of Shelby County—Districts
43 and 50—were overpopulated by 23.14 percent and 21.65 percent respectively. (Ex.
NPX 332). District 50 also reached into St. Clair County. All three of these districts
16

in Shelby and St. Clair Counties were in the Birmingham metropolitan area. Two
majority-white districts in Baldwin County near Mobile—Districts 94 and 95—were
overpopulated by 31.29 percent and 35.41 percent respectively. And Districts 6 and
25, majority-white districts in Madison and Limestone Counties near Huntsville, were
overpopulated by 26.70 percent and 42.68 percent respectively. (Ex. NPX 332).
The malapportionment was especially severe in the majority-black House
districts that the Democrat-controlled Legislature had drawn as part of their
successful partisan gerrymander in 2001. After the 2010 Census, all of the 27
majority-black districts in the House were underpopulated, and 25 were
underpopulated by more than 5 percent, the maximum deviation used under the 2001
plans. (Ex. NPX 332). Nine of the majority-black districts were underpopulated by
more than 20 percent. (Ex. NPX 332).
The new census data also revealed the malapportionment of the Senate
districts. The population in 24 of the 35 districts for the Alabama Senate deviated
from the ideal population by more than 5 percent. (Ex. NPX 340). Of those
malapportioned districts, four of the districts deviated from the ideal population by
more than 20 percent. (Ex. NPX 340). Like the House districts, the most
malapportioned districts included portions of Shelby County, Limestone County, and
Madison County. The most malapportioned district was District 2, a majority-white
district in Limestone and Madison Counties, which was overpopulated by 31.12
percent. (Ex. NPX 340). Districts 14 and 15, majority-white districts that included
17

portions of Shelby County, were overpopulated by 23.51 percent and 17.50 percent
respectively. District 17, a majority-white district that included portions of St. Clair,
Jefferson, and Blount Counties, was overpopulated by 15.09 percent.
As with the House districts, the malapportionment was especially severe in the
majority-black Senate districts drawn by the Democrat-controlled Legislature as part
of their successful partisan gerrymander in 2001. All of the eight majority-black
districts were underpopulated. (Ex. NPX 340). Seven of the eight majority-black
districts were underpopulated by more than 10 percent, and two of those districts
were underpopulated by more than 20 percent. (Ex. NPX 340). Many of these
malapportioned districts were located within the “Black Belt,” a south-central region
of the State named for its black soil. A large black population resides there because of
a history of agriculture and slavery.
The underpopulation of the majority-black House and Senate districts reflected
the systematic underpopulation of those districts in previous rounds of redistricting
over the last twenty years. In the 1993 Reed-Buskey plans, which Democratic
legislators proposed and a state court approved, 25 of the 27 majority-black districts
in the House of Representatives were underpopulated, and 19 of those 25 were
underpopulated by more than 4 percent. (Ex. SDX 417). All eight of the majorityblack districts for the Senate were underpopulated, and six of them were
underpopulated by more than 4 percent. (Ex. SDX 414). In the 2001 plans, adopted
by the then-Democratic Legislature, 22 of the 27 majority-black House districts were
18

underpopulated, and 10 of those districts were underpopulated by greater than 4
percent. (Ex. SDX 411). Six of the eight majority-black Senate districts were
underpopulated, and four of those districts were underpopulated by greater than 4
percent. (Ex. SDX 407).
In 2001, the Democrat-controlled Legislature repopulated the majority-black
districts by shifting thousands of black people into those districts to maintain the
same relative percentages of the black population in those districts. The following
table illustrates how the Legislature repopulated the majority-black House districts by
adding thousands of black people to 26 of those districts.

19

House 2001
District Plan
19
32
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
67
68
69
70
71
72
76
77
78
82
83
84
85
97
98
99
103

28,011
24,975
27,716
26,247
25,563
27,344
26,546
25,373
25,937
25,449
26,693
25,663
25,227
26,417
26,587
25,872
25,561
30,117
28,546
29,390
27,605
24,651
21,696
19,964
27,667
27,393
27,674
26,570

Total
Black
Pop. (%)
66.039
59.598
65.848
64.445
63.276
67.772
62.665
62.967
63.518
63.241
64.348
63.447
62.211
65.308
62.827
64.191
60.748
73.309
69.677
72.697
62.663
61.214
52.360
47.863
64.738
64.448
65.250
63.049

1993 Plan
Using 2000
Census Data
25,869
22,704
25,799
21,312
20,153
27,217
23,896
28,593
24,284
20,459
23,455
23,358
23,051
25,198
23,375
24,041
24,825
29,655
23,986
23,911
30,493
26,144
16,235
16,934
24,414
22,935
25,950
25,832

Black
Total
Pop. (%)
78.565
63.490
73.870
65.298
63.061
76.270
70.268
82.615
74,163
66.255
74.876
71.032
62.938
64.855
75.603
67.736
64.652
76.527
74.802
68.874
78.826
60.782
39.353
53.312
67.243
69.401
74.916
75.299

1993 Plan
Using 1990
Data
25,118
24,626
24,825
24,136
23,567
22,534
23,326
23,453
22,969
23,367
24,380
23,247
23,774
23,149
24,460
24,390
24,436
24,427
26,704
26,468
30,503
25,957
13,832
18,696
23,878
24,062
24,033
24,003

Total
Black
Pop. (%)
66.27
63.93
67.72
66.01
63.95
61.57
63.52
63.90
62.75
63.86
66.22
63.50
63.58
63.29
64.60
66.16
65.36
66.69
71.93
72.37
79.73
64.52
37.81
51.13
65.22
65.72
65.09
65.58

(Ex. CE 30; Ex. CE 32; CE 31). In total, the Democrat-controlled Legislature moved
62,376 black people into the majority-black House districts to maintain the same
relative percentages of black population in those districts. In 2001, 62,376 black
people constituted 5.4 percent of the total black population in Alabama.
20

The following table illustrates that the Legislature repopulated the majorityblack Senate districts by adding thousands of black people to all but one of those
districts.
Senate
District

2001
Plan

18
19
20
23
24
26
28
33

82,769
80,662
80,075
75,380
75,520
92,486
71,653
79,492

Total
Black
Pop. (%)
66.865
66.227
65.697
62.305
62.409
71.507
56.458
62.451

1993 Plan
Using 2000
Data
67,264
79,706
68,198
71,607
72,245
77,552
72,872
73,299

Total
Black
Pop. (%)
67.588
76.452
71.829
66.081
68.964
73.485
59.269
70.483

1993 Plan
Using 1990
Data
72,528
69,313
70,716
70,170
73,286
77,599
70,292
71,973

Total
Black
Pop. (%)
65.89
63.00
64.28
63.46
65.36
70.34
61.09
65.34

(Ex. APX 4; Ex. CE 34; Ex. SDX 415). In total, the Democrat-controlled Legislature
moved 55,294 black people into the majority-black Senate districts to maintain the
same relative percentages of black population in those districts. In 2001, 55,294 black
people constituted 4.8 percent of the total black population in Alabama.
The Democratic leaders of the previous Legislature were never shy about their
partisan strategy in redistricting. After the adoption of the 2001 districts, the
Democratic leaders filed, as amici curiae, a brief in the Supreme Court of the United
States that described the districts as an example of a successful partisan gerrymander.
See Brief for Leadership of the Alabama Senate and House of Representatives: Lowell
Barron, et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Appellees, Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267,
124 S. Ct. 1769 (2004) (No. 02-1580) (Ex. SDX 448). The brief explained that,

21

during the redistricting process after the 2000 Census, “the Democratic leadership
pursued a biracial strategy aimed at safeguarding its governing majorities in both
houses of the Legislature.” Id. The brief bragged that the partisan strategy succeeded:
“The 2002 general election returned Democratic candidates to 71% of the Senate
seats and 60% of the House seats, with 52% of the statewide vote supporting
Democrats in Senate races and 51% supporting Democrats in House races.” Id. But
this partisan gerrymander, during a period of realignment when Republicans won
presidential and other statewide elections with increasing frequency, rested on a shaky
foundation that collapsed in 2010 when Republicans won supermajorities in both
houses of the Legislature.
3. The Redistricting Process After the 2010 Census
After the 2010 Census, the Alabama Legislature began the process of
redistricting itself. We describe that process from its inception to the adoption of the
final plans by the Legislature. In so doing, we describe the work of the permanent
legislative committee on reapportionment, the guidelines adopted by the committee,
and the consultant hired by the committee to draw the new district lines.
a. The Permanent Legislative Committee on Reapportionment
The Alabama Code provides for a Permanent Legislative Committee on
Reapportionment to address the problems of malapportionment that may arise after
each new census. See Ala. Code §§ 29-2-50, -51. When the Legislature is not actively
involved with the reapportionment process, the Committee comprises six members,
22

three from each house of the Legislature. Id. § 29-2-51(b). During the
reapportionment process, Alabama law requires that the Committee expand to 22
members. Id. § 29-2-51(c). Those 22 members must include “[o]ne member of the
House of Representatives from each congressional district, four members of the
House of Representatives at-large . . . appointed by the Speaker of the House and one
member of the Senate from each congressional district, four members of the Senate
at-large . . . appointed by the Lieutenant Governor.” Id. The current members of the
Committee include Senator Trip Pittman (R), Senator Jimmy Holley (R), Senator
Gerald Dial (R), Senator Clay Scofield (R), Senator William L. Holtzclaw (R), Senator
Cam Ward (R), Senator Linda Coleman (D), Senator Gerald Allen (R), Senator Vivian
Davis Figure (D), Senator Arthur Orr (R), Senator Bryan Taylor (R), Representative
George Bandy (D), Representative Randy Davis (R), Representative Steve Clouse (R),
Representative Barbara Boyd (D), Representative Craig Ford (D), Representative
Lynn Greer (R), Representative Jim McClendon (R), Representative Ralph Howard
(D), Representative Jamie Ison (R), Representative Mike Hill (R), and Representative
Micky Hammon (R). (Joint Stip. 2–3). Senator Dial and Representative McClendon
co-chair the Committee. (Joint Stip. 3). All of the Republicans on the Committee are
white. (Joint Stip. 2–3). Representative Ford is the only white Democrat on the
Committee; all of the other Democrats on the Committee are black. (Joint Stip. 2–3).
The Committee is primarily charged with the creation of each new
reapportionment plan for the State. See Ala. Code § 29-2-50(2). The Committee is
23

required to “make a continuous study of the reapportionment problems in Alabama”;
“make reports of its investigations, findings[,] and recommendations to the
Legislature at any time, during any regular or special session of the Legislature, as it
may deem necessary”; and “engage in such activities as it deems necessary for the
preparation and formulation of a reapportionment plan” for the Alabama Legislature
and the congressional districts of the State. Id. § 29-2-52(a), (b), (c). The Committee
has the authority “to employ consultants, technicians, attorneys[,] and any other
experts needed to prepare maps and make professional appearances to support any
plan of reapportionment adopted by the Legislature” and to “meet within and without
the state, hold public hearings[,] and otherwise have all of the powers of a legislative
committee.” Id. § 29-2-52(d), (g).
b. Guidelines Adopted by the Committee
To guide its work, the current Committee established written guidelines for
drawing the new district lines for members of Congress, the State Board of
Education, and the Legislature. (Joint Stip. 3). In these guidelines, the Committee
changed the allowable overall deviation in population for the State Board of
Education and the Legislature from 10 percent, which had been used in the 1993 and
2001 plans, to 2 percent. (Joint Stip. 3; Doc. 30-4, 2). The guidelines also provided
that the districts be drawn in accordance with the Voting Rights Act, be contiguous
and reasonably compact, be composed of as few counties as practicable, avoid
contests between incumbent members whenever possible, and respect communities
24

of interest. (Ex. SDX 420). The guidelines acknowledged that not all of the
redistricting goals could be accomplished and provided that, in cases of conflict,
priority would be given to the requirement of one person, one vote and to the
requirements of the Voting Rights Act. (Ex. CE 1). Senator Dial and Representative
McClendon believed that the Legislature was obligated, under the Voting Rights Act,
to preserve the existing number of majority-black districts. (Joint Stip. 5). And
Senator Dial personally promised the other members of the Senate that he would try
to make sure that none of the incumbents would have to run against each other in the
new plan. (Joint Stip. 4).
The Committee adopted the guideline of an overall deviation in population of 2
percent to comply with the requirement of one person, one vote under the
Fourteenth Amendment after a recent decision of another district court sitting in the
Eleventh Circuit that cast doubt on the presumptive constitutionality of a deviation of
10 percent. In Larios v. Cox, 300 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (N.D. Ga.), aff’d, 542 U.S. 947, 124
S. Ct. 2806 (2004), the district court concluded that a redistricting plan in Georgia,
which had used an overall deviation in population of 10 percent, violated the Equal
Protection Clause because the “population deviations in the Georgia House and
Senate were not driven by any traditional redistricting criteria such as compactness,
contiguity, and preserving county lines,” but were the result of a “concerted effort to
allow rural and inner-city Atlanta regions of the state to hold on to their legislative
influence (at the expense of suburban Atlanta), even as the rate of population growth
25

in those areas was substantially lower.” Id. at 1341–42. The district court also cast
doubt on the notion that an overall deviation of 10 percent could always serve as a
“safe harbor” for a state, especially in the light of developing technology that made it
possible to achieve substantially greater population equality. Id. at 1341 (“It is []
apparent that any efforts to minimize population deviations ceased once the ± 5 %
level was reached, even though perfect equality was certainly attainable given current
technology. Such use of a 10% population window as a safe harbor may well violate
the fundamental one person, one vote command of Reynolds, requiring that states
‘make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts . . . as nearly of equal
population as practicable’ and deviate from this principle only where ‘divergences . . .
are based on legitimate considerations incident to the effectuation of a rational state
policy.’” (quoting Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 577, 579, 84 S. Ct. 1362, 1390, 1391
(1964))). The Supreme Court affirmed that decision. Larios, 542 U.S. at 947, 124 S.
Ct. at 2806.
Many states across the country adopted an overall deviation in population of 2
percent or less for the redistricting of their state legislatures after the 2010 Census.
Florida used an overall deviation of 2 percent in its State Senate districts and an
overall deviation of 4 percent in its State House districts. (Ex. APX 76). Georgia
used an overall deviation of 2 percent in both houses of its legislature. (Ex. APX 76).
California, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin used
an overall deviation of 2 percent or less for both houses of their legislatures. (Ex.
26

APX 76). And Indiana, Oklahoma, and Virginia used an overall deviation of 2
percent or less for at least one house of their legislatures. (Ex. APX 76).
c. Public Hearings
At the beginning of the reapportionment process, the Committee conducted
public hearings at 21 locations throughout Alabama. (Joint Stip. 4). The hearings
occurred during October 2011 in DeKalb County, Marshall County, Madison County,
Lauderdale County, Fayette County, Morgan County, Chilton County, Shelby County,
Jefferson County, Houston County, Pike County, Butler County, Escambia County,
Mobile County, Clarke County, Marengo County, Tuscaloosa County, Calhoun
County, Lee County, Dallas County, and Montgomery County. (Ex. NPX 350). The
Committee used the schedule of public hearings that had taken place during the last
round of reapportionment in 2001 as the template for its schedule of public hearings
and made changes to the locations based only on specific requests from members of
the Committee. (Ex. NPX 350). Senator Dial and Representative McClendon
attended all of the hearings. (Joint Stip. 4). The other members of the Committee
attended some of the hearings, and other members of the Legislature occasionally
spoke at the hearings. (Joint Stip. 4). The first 21 meetings were held before the
Committee had completed any draft plans. Members of the public who attended
these hearings asked the Legislators to keep counties whole to the extent possible,
preserve communities of interest, and allow voters to keep the representatives and
senators with whom they were already familiar. At the public hearing in Dallas
27

County, Senator Hank Sanders (D), a black senator who represents a majority-black
district, asked Senator Dial to use 62 percent as a minimum for the majority-black
districts because often the population statistics for a district do not reflect the actual
voters in that district. (Ex. CE 21, 6). At the public hearing in Clarke County,
Representative Thomas Jackson (D), a black representative of a majority-black
district, asked that his district be 62 to 65 percent black. (Ex. CE 16, 8).
d. Randy Hinaman Hired as Consultant To Draw the Redistricting Plans
Senator Dial and Representative McClendon worked with Randy Hinaman to
draw the new districts for the Legislature. (Ex. APX 68). Hinaman is a political
consultant with experience working in Alabama. (Ex. NPX 352). He drew the
congressional districts in Alabama after the 2010 Census, (Ex. NPX 352); worked
with Democratic leaders after the 2000 Census to draw the congressional districts
adopted by the Legislature and precleared by the Department of Justice, (Trial Tr. vol.
3, 115–16, Aug. 12, 2013); and drew congressional districts that were adopted by
another three-judge district court in 1992 and affirmed by the Supreme Court, see
Wesch v. Hunt, 785 F. Supp. 1491, 1500 (S.D. Ala.), aff’d sub nom. Camp v. Wesch, 504
U.S. 902, 112 S. Ct. 1926 (1992). (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 114–15, Aug. 12, 2013). He also
served as the campaign manager and then as chief of staff for Alabama Congressman
Sonny Callahan during the 1980s. (Ex. NPX 352). In 2011, Hinaman contracted with
Citizens for Fair Representation, a nonprofit organization, to coordinate with the

28

Republican leadership of the Legislature to redraw the district lines for the Legislature
after the 2010 Census. (Ex. NPX 352).
Hinaman used a computer program known as Maptitude to draw the plans.
Maptitude allows the user to draw districts based on the data from the census.
(Hinaman Depo. 15:16–18, June 25, 2013). The program also allows the user to load
additional data into the program to assist with the drawing of the districts. (Hinaman
Depo. 15:16–23, June 25, 2013). Hinaman collected political data from the
Republican National Committee for every election in Alabama between 2002 and
2010 and imported that data into Maptitude. (Hinaman Depo. 15:3–13, June 25,
2013). Hinaman also collected and imported information about the residences of
incumbents from the Reapportionment Office. (Hinaman Depo. 36–38, June 25,
2013).
On September 22, 2011, Hinaman met with Speaker of the House Mike
Hubbard, President Pro Tempore Del Marsh, Senator Dial, Representative
McClendon, attorney Dorman Walker, and staff to agree upon goals and establish a
timeline for the drawing of the new districts. (Hinaman Depo. 23, 156, June 25,
2013). The participants understood that, under the Voting Rights Act, the new
districts could not reduce the total number of majority-black districts for each house
and that the new majority-black districts should reflect as closely as possible the
percentage of black voters in the existing majority-black districts as of the 2010
Census. (Hinaman Depo. 24, June 25, 2013). Hinaman suggested that he should
29

begin with the majority-black districts when he drew the map, and all of the
participants agreed. (Hinaman Depo. 24, June 25, 2013). The legislators also asked
Hinaman to avoid the placement of two incumbent members of the Legislature in a
single new district. (Hinaman Depo. 26, June 25, 2013). And the participants agreed
that Hinaman should try to maintain the characteristics of the preexisting districts to
the extent possible. (Hinaman Depo. 26–27, June 25, 2013).
Senator Dial, Representative McClendon, and Hinaman understood
“retrogression” under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to mean the reduction in the
number of majority-black districts or a significant reduction in the percentage of
blacks in the new districts as compared to the 2001 districts with the 2010 data. (Trial
Tr. vol. 3, 221, Aug. 8, 2013). Section 5 requires that a covered jurisdiction obtain
preclearance of a new voting “standard, practice, or procedure” by either the Attorney
General of the United States or the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia to ensure that the change “does not have the purpose and will not have the
effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.” 42
U.S.C. § 1973c. “Whether a voting procedure change should be precleared depends
on whether the change would lead to a retrogression in the position of racial
minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.” Georgia v.
Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461, 466, 123 S. Ct. 2498, 2504 (2003). When the Attorney General
evaluates whether a new redistricting plan has a “retrogressive” effect, the Attorney
General compares the old districts in the light of updated census data with the new
30

plans. See Dep’t of Justice, Guidance Concerning Redistricting Under Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act, 76 Fed. Reg. 7471-01 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Hinaman worked alone on the new districts during the fall of 2011. He began
with the majority-black districts. (Hinaman Depo. 38, June 25, 2013). Although
during this phase Hinaman did not personally speak with the black members of the
Legislature who represented those districts, he incorporated proposals that he
received from Senator Dial and Representative McClendon after they met with the
representatives from those districts. (Hinaman Depo. 39, June 25, 2013). After he
drafted the majority-black districts, Hinaman started in the southern corners of the
State and worked toward the center of the map. (Hinaman Depo. 38–39, June 25,
2013). He provided an initial plan to Senator Dial and Representative McClendon
around February 2012.
During the spring of 2012 while the Legislature was in regular session,
Hinaman continued to work on the district plans and incorporate feedback from the
legislators. Hinaman traveled to Alabama to meet in person with many of the
Republican legislators. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 119–20, Aug. 12, 2013). Although he did not
meet with Democratic legislators, he incorporated suggestions that Senator Dial and
Representative McClendon received from Democratic legislators. (Trial Tr. vol. 3,
120, Aug. 12, 2013). Senator Dial gave Hinaman proposed maps for the three
majority-black Senate districts in Jefferson County that Senator Rodger Smitherman
(D), a black legislator from Jefferson County, had provided him. (Hinaman Depo. 43,
31

June 25, 2013). Senator Dial instructed Hinaman to incorporate those maps into the
Senate plan to the extent possible because they represented the wishes of the three
senators from those districts. (Hinaman Depo. 43, June 25, 2013). Hinaman drew
the majority-black districts in Jefferson County to be substantially the same as the
maps provided to him by Senator Dial. (Hinaman Depo. 43, June 25, 2013).
Representative McClendon gave Hinaman proposed maps for the drawing of
Montgomery County that McClendon had been given by Representative Thad
McClammy (D), a black legislator from that county. (Hinaman Depo. 45, June 25,
2013). Notably, the McClammy map proposed the move of House District 73 from
Montgomery County. It was a consensus map among the black Democratic
representatives of Montgomery County. House District 73 is represented by Joe
Hubbard, a white freshman Democrat. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 25, Aug. 9, 2013).
Representative McClendon told Hinaman to adopt as many of Representative
McClammy’s ideas as possible, and Hinaman followed that instruction. (Hinaman
Depo. 45–46, June 25, 2013).
Senator Dial and Representative McClendon unveiled the plans to the
Committee on May 9, 2012. The plan for the House of Representatives increased the
total number of majority-black districts from 27 to 28 based on total population
figures. The new majority-black district was District 85, which had previously been a
plurality-black district. District 85 is located in southeast Alabama in Henry and
Houston Counties. (Ex. SDX 404; Ex. CE 41). Because of the severe
32

malapportionment of most of the majority-black districts, the new plans had to
incorporate significant changes to those districts.
e. The Six Districts Challenged by Plaintiffs
Primarily at issue in this matter are six decisions made by Hinaman, in
consultation with members of the Legislature. In the map for the House of
Representatives, Hinaman moved one majority-white district, House District 73, out
of Montgomery County, and moved one majority-black district, House District 53,
out of Jefferson County. In the map for the Senate, Hinaman reworked the
boundaries of Senate Districts 7, 11, 22, and 26.
i. House District 73
Hinaman moved House District 73, a majority-white House district, from
Montgomery County to Shelby and Bibb Counties to avoid retrogression of the
majority-black House districts in Montgomery County. The 2001 plan divided
Montgomery County into six House districts—Districts 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, and 78—
three of which were majority-white and three of which were majority-black. (Ex.
SDX 406). The new plan divided Montgomery County into seven House districts—
Districts 69, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, and 90—four of which are majority-black districts, and
three of which are majority-white districts. (Ex. APX 15). Although House District
73 was a majority-white district under the 2001 plan, its black population had grown
since 2000, and Hinaman was able to use that population to repopulate the majorityblack districts in Montgomery County without retrogression. (Ex. APX 15; Ex. APX
33

16). Hinaman placed the new District 73 in Shelby County, one of the fastest growing
areas of the State. (Ex. APX 15). Although Hinaman had begun working on this idea
in early 2012, he refined the concept after he received a map from Representative
McClammy that also used the former District 73 to repopulate the majority-black
districts. (Hinaman Depo. 134, June 25, 2013).
ii. House District 53
Hinaman also moved House District 53, a majority-black district, from
Jefferson County to the Huntsville area in Madison County because of the substantial
underpopulation of the majority-black districts in Jefferson County. (Ex. APX 15).
Under the 2001 plan, Jefferson County had nine majority-black House districts and
nine majority-white House districts. (Hinaman Depo. 60–61, June 25, 2013).
Although the black population in Jefferson County increased between 2000 and 2010,
that change was not reflected in the majority-black districts in the County. Instead, all
of the majority-black districts in Jefferson County were significantly underpopulated.
Because of that underpopulation, Hinaman could not comply with the guideline for
population deviation adopted by the Committee and maintain nine majority-black
House districts within Jefferson County without significantly reducing the percentage
of black voters in each district. (Hinaman Depo. 60–61, June 25, 2013). To preserve
the total number of majority-black districts and avoid a problem of retrogression
under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Hinaman moved District 53 to Madison
County and used the population that had previously been located within District 53 to
34

repopulate the other majority-black districts in Jefferson County. (Hinaman Depo.
60–61, June 25, 2013). Under the new plan, the same number of House districts
include a portion of Jefferson County, but ten of those districts are majority-white and
eight of those districts are majority-black. (Hinaman Depo. 62–63, June 25, 2013).
Although the racial balance of the districts has changed, the partisan balance of
incumbents has not: nine of the House districts have Republican incumbents as
residents, and nine of the House districts have Democratic incumbents as residents.
But the majority-white district with a Democratic incumbent might elect a
Republican, which would likely shift the partisan balance to 10 Republicans and 8
Democrats. Jefferson County is 53.62 percent white and 42.47 percent black. (Ex.
APX 19; Ex. NPX 328).
iii. Senate District 7
Hinaman reduced the population of Senate District 7 to accommodate the
overpopulation of it and its neighboring districts. District 7, a majority-white district
in Madison County with a substantial minority population, was overpopulated by 9.04
percent. (Ex. SDX 402; Ex. CE 29). To the west, District 7 shared a border with
District 2, which was overpopulated by 31.12 percent. (Ex. SDX 402; Ex. CE 29).
To the south, District 7 shared a border with Districts 3 and 9, which were
overpopulated by 10.69 percent and 5.85 percent respectively. (Ex. SDX 402; Ex. CE
29). To the east, District 7 shared a border with District 8, which was overpopulated
by 4.07 percent. (Ex. SDX 402; Ex. CE 29). To the north, District 7 shared a border
35

with Tennessee. (Ex. SDX 402; Ex. CE 29). Under the new map, Hinaman took
some residents of Limestone and Madison Counties from District 2 and moved them
into District 1. (Ex. APX 17). Hinaman removed a total of 10,994 people from
District 7, and 10,151 of those people were black. He moved most of that population
into Senate District 1, which was represented by Senator Tammy Irons (D).
iv. Senate District 11
Hinaman significantly altered the shape of Senate District 11, a majority-white
district formerly located in Calhoun, Talladega, Coosa, and Elmore Counties, because
of changes to nearby districts. Hinaman testified that the changes made to District 11
were the result of “a combination of how the rest of those districts were moved
around.” (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 125, 171, Aug. 12, 2013). Under the 2001 plan, Senate
District 30 was a bizarre district drawn in the shape of an Elmo projector, with Butler,
Crenshaw, and Pike Counties forming a sturdy base for the district, and a portion of
Lowndes County forming a thin neck to its head in Autauga County. (Ex. APX 37).
Under the new plan, District 30 is a more compact district that includes all of Autauga
and Coosa Counties and portions of Chilton and Elmore Counties. (Ex. APX 17).
Because District 30 now encompasses all of Coosa County, the district shares a
border with the new District 11, which includes portions of St. Clair, Shelby, and
Talladega Counties. (Hinaman Depo. 127, June 25, 2013). The former District 11
was 62.59 percent white and 33.95 percent black. (Ex. NPX 340). The new District
11 is 81.66 percent white and 14.96 percent black. (Ex. APX 6). The incumbent
36

senator from District 11, Jerry Fielding, switched from the Democratic Party to the
Republican Party after the Legislature approved the new districts.
v. Senate District 22
Although Senate District 22 in southwest Alabama was not malapportioned in
2010, Hinaman redrew its borders to accommodate shifts in population from
neighboring districts that were significantly malapportioned. In 2010, three of the
Senate districts in Mobile County—Districts 33, 34, and 35—were underpopulated by
a total of 15,656 people. (Ex. SDX 402). Senate District 32, which was located in
Baldwin County on the eastern shore of Mobile Bay, was overpopulated by 19,055.
(Ex. SDX 402). Baldwin County is bordered on the east by Florida, the south by the
Gulf of Mexico, and the west by Mobile Bay and Mobile County. Mobile County is
bordered on the west by Mississippi, the south by the Gulf of Mexico, and the east by
Mobile Bay and Baldwin County. Senate District 22, which included portions of
Washington, Clarke, Choctaw, Escambia, Monroe, and Conecuh Counties, bordered
District 34 on the north, and extended down into a strip of land in Mobile and
Baldwin Counties between Districts 33 and 34 on the west and District 32 on the east.
(Ex. APX 48). Senate Districts 23 and 24 bordered Senate District 22 on the north
and both were majority-black districts with significant underpopulation. (Ex. APX
48). Hinaman considered moving District 35 across Mobile Bay to gain some of the
overpopulation from Baldwin County, but Senator Trip Pittman (R) of District 32
objected to that proposal. (Hinaman Depo. 108–09, June 25, 2013). Hinaman
37

decided instead to repopulate District 35 by taking population from District 34; to
transfer population from a portion of District 22 in Mobile County to District 34; to
move northern portions of District 32 in Baldwin County into District 22; and to
repopulate Districts 23 and 24 with some of the portions of District 22. (Ex. APX
49). As a result, District 22 crossed into all of the same counties as in the 2001 plan,
but the District included smaller portions of Mobile, Choctaw, and Washington
Counties. (Ex. APX 49). The new map divided the MOWA Band of Choctaw
Indians, a small Native American tribe not recognized by the federal government,
between District 22 and District 34. (Ex. APX 49).
vi. Senate District 26
Hinaman substantially decreased the land size of Senate District 26, a majorityblack district in Montgomery County. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 123, Aug. 9, 2013). Under the
2001 plan, Senate District 26 included the majority of Montgomery County, following
the county lines. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 122, Aug. 12, 2013). In 2010, the total population
of District 26 was underpopulated by 11.64 percent and was 22.03 percent white and
72.75 percent black. (Ex. NPX 340; Ex. APX 7). To comply with the guideline of an
overall deviation in population of 2 percent, Hinaman moved some of the densely
populated precincts in the City of Montgomery into Senate District 26. (Trial Tr. vol.
3, 129, Aug. 12, 2013). Under the 2001 plan, Senate District 25 was located primarily
in Elmore County to the northeast of Senate District 26. (Ex. SDX 477). To
maintain contiguous districts and as a result of moving other districts, Hinaman
38

created a land bridge through Montgomery County to connect District 25 with
Crenshaw County to the south. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 127–29, Aug. 12, 2013). This land
bridge removed a large geographic portion of District 26, although it did not
significantly reduce the population of the district. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 128–29, Aug. 12,
2013). Under Act 603, the new redistricting plan for the Senate, Senate District 26
maintains much of its former shape by following the county lines at the northern
borders. (Ex. SDX 476). The district remains underpopulated by .08 percent and the
percentage of the population that is black has increased slightly, from 72.75 percent to
75.22 percent. (Ex. APX 7).
f. Adoption of the Plans by the Committee
The Committee adopted these plans on May 9, 2012, as working drafts, and
then officially adopted the plans on May 17, 2012. (Ex. CE 24; Ex. CE 25). In both
meetings, Senator Dial and Representative McClendon explained the plans, and the
Committee discussed them. The Committee adopted the McClendon House plan as a
working draft by a recorded vote of 16 yeas and 3 nays and the Dial Senate plan by a
voice vote. (Ex. CE 24). The Committee officially adopted the plans one week later
by the same votes. (Ex. CE 25).
The Committee conducted a twenty-second public hearing in Montgomery
approximately an hour and a half after it adopted the plans. (Ex. CE 23). At that
hearing, several legislators objected to particular splits of counties and to the decision
to split Lauderdale and Colbert Counties into two different Senate districts because
39

those counties form a community of interest known as the “Shoals.” (Ex. CE 23).
Under the 2001 plan, all of Lauderdale County and most of Colbert County had been
located within District 1. Under the new plan, part of Lauderdale County and all of
Colbert County are now located in District 6, and District 1 now includes portions of
Lauderdale, Limestone, and Madison Counties. Representative Merika Coleman (D)
from Jefferson County objected to what she viewed as the “packing and stacking” of
the black vote. (Ex. CE 23). Representative Joe Hubbard (D) objected to the districts
for Montgomery County, which he viewed as disrespectful of communities of
interests, and to the decision to move his district, District 73, to Shelby County. (Ex.
CE 23). Two local officials from Clay County objected to its division into two
districts because the 2001 plan had included the county in a single House district.
(Ex. CE 23). And voters from several counties raised objections to the lack of
sufficient advance notice for the hearing and to the splitting of certain counties.
In the final week before the passage of Act 602 and Act 603, Hinaman met
with legislators at a computer in the Reapportionment Office to make final
adjustments to the maps. (Hinaman Depo. 41–42, June 25, 2013). Hinaman met with
several Democratic members of the Legislature during this process. (Hinaman Depo.
41–42, June 25, 2013). Representative McClendon and Hinaman were able to
accommodate some of the representatives, including Barry Mask (R) and Greg Wren
(R), who had some issues that affected Montgomery; Oliver Robinson (D), Mary
Moore (D), and Patricia Todd (D), who wanted to swap precincts in the Birmingham
40

area; Greg Burdine (D), Marcel Black (D), and Johnny Mack Morrow (D), who had
requests for their shared borders in northwest Alabama; Jeremy Oden (R), Ed Henry
(R), Wes Long (R), and Kerry Rich (R), who also had problems with their shared
border in northeast Alabama; and two representatives who had initially been drawn
outside of their districts. (Ex. APX 64-5, 5–6). But Representative McClendon and
Hinaman were not able to accommodate requests from Representative Merika
Coleman and Representative Juandalynn Givan, two members from the Birmingham
area, who wanted to move 3,700 people from one district to another because that
change would have violated the guideline of an overall deviation of 2 percent. (Ex.
APX 64-5, 5–6). Senator Dial tried to accommodate a request from Senator Tammy
Irons (D) to move her law office into her district, but he was unable to offer an
amendment on the Senate floor because another senator, Mark Keahey (D), called for
a third reading of the bill at length and the rules of the Legislature require an
immediate vote on a bill after it has been read three times. (Ex. APX 64-4, 5).
Throughout the process, Senator Dial and Representative McClendon had to
balance the requirements of the committee guidelines against the preferences of
incumbents. And the new districts needed to be passed by the Legislature. (Trial Tr.
vol. 1, 42, Aug. 8, 2013). Senator Dial adjusted the Senate plan repeatedly to satisfy
legislators so that the bill could be passed. But many legislators, both Republican and
Democrat, were dissatisfied with the plans. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 42, Aug. 8, 2013).

41

g. The Final Redistricting Plans: Act 602 and Act 603
The final versions of the House and Senate bills preserved the majority-black
districts with roughly the same percentages of black population as in the 1993 and
2001 plans. (Ex. APX 6; Ex. APX 7). The statistics are consistent with the agreement
between Hinaman, the Republican leadership, and the co-chairs of the Committee to
preserve the majority-black districts without retrogression. As the following table
illustrates, Act 602 increased slightly the percentage of the black population in 14 of
the original 27 majority-black House districts, decreased slightly the percentage of the
black population in the other 13 majority-black House districts, and created one new
majority-black House district in total population.

42

House
District
Number

Act 2012-602
Total Black
Pop. (%)

19
32
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
67
68
69
70
71
72
76
77
78
82
83
84
85
97
98
99
103

61.5
60.3
60.1
56.2
56.9
73.6
62.3
68.5
73.0
76.8
67.9
69.2
64.6
64.2
62.2
66.9
64.5
73.9
67.0
70.2
62.2
57.7
52.4
50.5
60.8
60.0
65.7
65.3

Overpop. (+) or
Underpop. (–) of
2001 District Using
2010 Census Data
(%)
–6.90
–14.76
–5.19
–22.28
–23.32
–21.86
–9.79
–20.48
–17.75
–27.86
–19.37
–16.79
–20.40
–17.46
–13.77
–16.32
–13.42
–1.38
–23.12
–32.16
–4.68
–9.85
–9.24
–6.79
–22.22
–16.89
–12.59
–10.79

(Ex. APX 6; Ex. SDX 403; Ex. NPX 310).

43

2001 House
Total Black
Pop. (%)

1993 House
Total Black
Pop. (%)

66.039
59.598
65.848
64.445
63.276
67.772
62.665
62.967
63.518
63.241
64.348
63.447
62.211
65.308
62.827
64.191
60.748
73.309
69.677
72.697
62.663
61.214
52.360
47.863
64.738
64.448
65.250
63.049

66.27
63.93
67.72
66.01
63.95
61.57
63.52
63.90
62.75
63.86
66.22
63.50
63.58
63.29
64.60
66.16
65.36
66.69
71.93
72.37
79.73
64.52
37.81
51.13
65.22
65.72
65.09
65.58

And the following table illustrates that Act 603 increased the percentage of the
black population in five of the majority-black Senate districts and decreased the
percentage of the black population in the other three majority-black Senate districts.
Senate
District
Number
18
19
20
23
24
26
28
33

Act 2012-603 Overpop. (+) or
Total Black
Underpop. (–) of
Pop. (%)
2001 District Using
2010 Census Data (%)
59.12
–17.64
65.39
–20.06
63.38
–21.37
64.81
–18.03
63.30
–12.98
75.22
–11.64
59.96
–3.80
71.71
–18.05

2001 Senate
Total Black
Pop. (%)

1993 Senate
Total Black
Pop. (%)

66.685
66.227
65.697
62.305
62.409
71.507
56.458
62.451

65.89
63.00
64.28
63.46
65.36
70.34
61.09
65.34

(Ex. APX 7; Ex. NPX 310, Ex. NPX 312).
The following table illustrates the percentages of total black population and
black voting-age population for each majority-black House district under Act 602 and
the percentage of overall deviation in total population from ideal population for each
majority-black House district.

44

House District
Number

Act 2012-602 Total
Black Pop. (%)

19
32
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
67
68
69
70
71
72
76
77
78
82
83
84
85
97
98
99
103

61.5
60.3
60.1
56.2
56.9
73.6
62.3
68.5
73.0
76.8
67.9
69.2
64.6
64.2
62.2
66.9
64.5
73.9
67.0
70.2
62.2
57.7
52.4
50.5
60.8
60.0
65.7
65.3

Act 2012-602
Voting-Age Black
Pop. (%)
60.15
57.68
57.21
52.98
52.50
70.60
59.71
65.96
67.99
74.28
65.68
65.73
61.82
61.83
57.13
64.42
61.88
71.24
64.20
67.43
60.48
55.53
50.99
47.22
56.73
57.96
62.07
60.18

Deviation from
Ideal Total Pop.
(%)
-.97
-.04
-.96
-.91
-.99
-.99
-.99
-.99
-.95
-.67
-.96
-.97
-.99
-.10
.99
-.38
-.38
.99
.95
.96
.74
.99
.98
-.64
-.99
-.99
-.99
-.98

(Ex. APX 6; Ex. SDX 403).
The following table illustrates the percentages of total black population and
black voting-age population for each majority-black Senate district under Act 603 and

45

the percentage of overall deviation in total population from ideal population for each
majority-black Senate district.
Senate District
Number

Act 2012-603 Total
Black Pop. (%)

18
19
20
23
24
26
28
33

59.12
65.39
63.38
64.81
63.30
75.22
59.96
71.71

Act 2012-603
Voting-Age Black
Pop. (%)
56.43
62.68
59.03
61.67
59.74
72.70
58.03
68.10

(Ex. APX 7; Ex. SDX 400).

46

Deviation from
Ideal Total Pop.
(%)
-.96
-.99
-.99
-.90
.85
-.08
.98
-.26

The following table compares the percentages of black voting-age population
for each majority-black House district using the 2010 Census data under Act 602 and
under the 2001 plan.
House District Number
19
32
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
67
68
69
70
71
72
76
77
78
82
83
84
85
97
98
99
103

Act 2012-602 Voting-Age
Black Pop. (%) Using 2010
Census Data
60.15
57.68
57.21
52.98
52.50
70.60
59.71
65.96
67.99
74.28
65.68
65.73
61.82
61.83
57.13
64.42
61.88
71.24
64.20
67.43
60.48
55.53
50.99
47.22
56.73
57.96
62.07
60.18

(Ex. APX 6).
47

2001 House Plan VotingAge Black Pop. (%) Using
2010 Census Data
67.70
56.62
58.52
52.49
53.37
71.22
59.42
66.52
74.02
64.25
65.15
65.59
59.97
61.99
56.31
62.04
57.52
67.48
71.48
72.57
54.19
55.51
49.23
45.64
57.35
62.23
70.09
64.83

The following table compares the percentages of black voting-age population
for each majority-black Senate district using the 2010 Census data under Act 603 and
under the 2001 plan.
Senate District Number Act 2012-603 Voting-Age
Black Pop. (%) Using 2010
Census Data
18
56.43
19
62.68
20
59.03
23
61.67
24
59.74
26
72.70
28
58.03
33
68.10

Act 2001 Senate Plan
Voting-Age Black Pop. (%)
Using 2010 Census Data
57.31
69.31
74.44
61.79
59.38
70.87
49.82
61.55

(Ex. APX 7).
Most of the majority-black districts under the new plan remain underpopulated,
but within 1 percent of the ideal population. Of the 28 majority-black House districts,
20 remain underpopulated. Six of the eight majority-black Senate districts remain
underpopulated.
Because the Legislature used a tighter deviation in population compared to the
Democrat-controlled Legislature in 2001, the number of black people and the
percentage of the black population moved into majority-black districts were higher
under the Acts than compared to those same numbers in 2001. In 2012, the
Legislature moved 9.8 percent of the total black population into the majority-black
House districts and 8.5 percent of the total black population into the majority-black
48

Senate districts. (Ex. APX 6, 7). If the Democrat-controlled Legislature in 2001 had
drawn the redistricting lines in accordance with an overall deviation in population of 2
percent, they would have needed to move 6.6 percent of the total black population
into the majority-black House districts and 5.8 percent of the total black population
into the majority-black Senate districts. The following table illustrates how the
Legislature repopulated the majority-black House districts in 2001 and how many
additional black people would have been required had that Legislature complied with
the guideline of 2 percent deviation used in 2012.

49

HD
#

Total
Black
Pop.
in
2001
Plan

Deviation Total
in 2001
Black
Plan (%) Pop.
(%) in
2001
Plan

19
32
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
67
68
69
70
71
72
76
77
78
82
83
84
85
97
98
99
103

28,011
24,975
27,716
26,247
25,563
27,344
26,546
25,373
25,937
25,449
26,693
25,663
25,227
26,417
26,587
25,872
25,561
30,117
28,546
29,390
27,605
24,651
21,696
19,964
27,667
27,393
27,674
26,570

0.149
-1.055
-0.619
-3.837
-4.614
-4.736
0.021
-4.857
-3.587
-4.987
-2.057
-4.498
-4.255
-4.493
-0.083
-4.836
-0.652
-3.001
-3.268
-4.545
4.014
-4.918
-2.165
-1.516
.907
.357
.139
-.498

66.039
59.598
65.848
64.445
63.276
67.772
62.665
62.967
63.518
63.241
64.348
63.447
62.211
65.308
62.827
64.191
60.748
73.309
69.677
72.697
62.663
61.214
52.360
47.863
64.738
64.448
65.250
63.049

Black
Pop. of
1993
Plan
Using
2000
Census
25,869
22,704
25,799
21,312
20,153
27,217
23,896
28,593
24,284
20,459
23,455
23,358
23,051
25,198
23,375
24,041
24,825
29,655
23,986
23,911
30,493
26,144
16,235
16,934
24,414
22,935
25,950
25,832

Black
People
Moved
To Create
2001 Plan

Act 602
Deviation
from Ideal
Total Pop.
(%)

Black People Moved
To Create 2001 Plan
Using Act 602
Deviations
(Redistribution /
Total Black Pop.)

2,142
2,271
1,917
4,935
5,410
127
2,650
-3,220
1,653
4,990
3,238
2,305
2,176
1,219
3,212
1,831
736
462
4,560
5,479
-2,888
-1,493
5,461
3,030
3,253
4,458
1,724
738

-0.97
-0.04
-0.96
-0.91
-0.99
-0.99
-0.99
-0.99
-0.95
-0.67
-0.96
-0.97
-0.99
-0.10
0.99
-0.38
-0.38
0.99
0.95
0.96
0.74
0.99
0.98
-0.64
-0.99
-0.99
-0.99
-0.98

1,947 / 27,816
1,631 / 24,335
1,088 / 26,887
5,848 / 27,161
6,494 / 26,647
1,323 / 28,540
2,493 / 26,389
-2,076 / 26,517
2,475 / 26,759
6,259 / 26,718
3,651 / 27,106
3,366 / 26,724
3,147 / 26,198
2,552 / 27,750
3,612 / 26,987
3,158 / 27,199
914 / 25,740
1,834 / 31,489
5,931 / 29,917
7,306 / 31,217
-3,643 / 26,850
161 / 26,305
6,254 / 22,489
3,293 / 20,227
2,848 / 27,262
4,205 / 27,140
1,528 / 27,478
722 / 26,554

(Ex. CE 30; CE 32; SDX 403).

50

The following table illustrates how the Legislature repopulated the majorityblack districts in the Senate in 2001 and how many additional black people would
have been required had that Legislature complied with the guideline of 2 percent
deviation used in 2012.
SD
#

Total
Black
Pop.
in
2001
Plan

Deviation Total
in 2001
Black
Plan (%) Pop.
(%) In
2001
Plan

18
19
20
23
24
26
28
33

82,769
80,662
80,075
75,380
75,520
92,486
71,653
79,492

-2.577
-4.142
-4.072
-4.781
-4.762
1.794
-0.116
.179

66.865
66.227
65.697
62.305
62.409
71.507
56.458
62.451

Black
Pop. of
1993
Plan
Using
2000
Census
67,264
79,706
68,198
71,607
72,245
77,552
72,872
73,299

Black
People
Moved To
Create
2001 Plan

Act 603
Deviation
from
Ideal
Total
Pop. (%)

Black People Moved
To Create 2001 Plan
Using Act 603
Deviations
(Redistribution /
Total Black Pop.)

15,505
956
11,877
3,773
3,275
14,934
-1,219
6,193

-0.96
-0.99
-0.99
-0.90
0.85
-0.08
0.98
-0.26

16,879 / 84,143
3,609 / 83,315
14,450 / 82,648
6,845 / 78,452
7,726 / 79,971
13,250 / 90,802
-433 / 72,439
5,845 / 79,144

(Ex. APX 4; CE 34; Ex. SDX 400).
Although the Constitution of Alabama prohibits the division of a county
among districts, see Ala. Const. Art. IX, § 200, the final plans split some counties to
comply with the overall deviation in population of 2 percent used to satisfy the federal
requirement of one person, one vote. The final plans split 33 counties for the Senate
districts and 50 counties for the House districts. The 1993 plans split 32 counties for
Senate districts and 36 counties for the House districts, and the 2001 plans split 31

51

counties for the Senate districts and 39 counties for the House districts. But those
earlier plans used an overall deviation in population of 10 percent. (Ex. APX 62).
Other counties were split to further the interests of incumbents. For example,
Representative Alan Harper, who switched to the Republican Party in 2012, asked to
have his district include a portion of Greene County in which he owned property.
(Hinaman Depo. 68, June 25, 2013). Representative Harper stated that he might
move to that property in the future, and the representative whose district had
previously included that property agreed to a change in which 12 people were moved
to District 61. (Hinaman Depo. 68, June 25, 2013). The rest of Greene County is
divided between Districts 71 and 72.
The final plan also kept incumbent conflicts to a minimum. No two
incumbent Senators were in the same district. The House plan had only two
incumbent conflicts. Two black incumbent Democrats, Representative Juandalynn
Givan and Representative Demetrius Newton, lived in District 60. Representative
Demetrius Newton has since died. Another black incumbent Democrat,
Representative John Knight, and a white incumbent Democrat, Representative Joe
Hubbard, lived in District 77, but Representative Hubbard has since moved to
District 74. The former incumbent conflict was the result of the decision to move
District 53 to Huntsville and use its former population to repopulate the majorityblack districts in Jefferson County, and the latter incumbent conflict was the result of

52

the decision to move District 73 to Shelby County and use its former population to
repopulate the majority-black districts in Montgomery County.
h. Adoption of the Acts into Law
The Alabama Legislature considered the proposed districts in a special session
that began on May 17, 2012, and ended on May 24, 2012. (Joint Stip. 6). The
Legislature made only minor changes to the bills during that week. The bills
proceeded along the normal legislative process through committees and debate on the
floor of each house of the Legislature. Democratic legislators offered substitute plans
in committee and on the floors of both houses of the Legislature, but none of their
plans complied with the guideline of an overall deviation in population of 2 percent
adopted by the Committee. Senator Hank Sanders (D) introduced HB16 and SB5 as
alternatives, both of which were drafted with an overall deviation of 10 percent.
Those plans placed several incumbents in the same districts, and those plans included
27 majority-black House districts. All of the proposed substitutes were defeated.
Both houses of the Legislature approved the Acts, and the Governor signed
them into law. The Senate approved its new districts by a vote of 20 to 13 along party
lines, with an Independent, Harri Ann Smith, joining the Democrats in the minority.
(Ex. NPX 315). The Senate approved the new House districts by a vote of 23 to 12
along party lines, with the Independent joining the Republicans in the majority. (Ex.
NPX 314). The House approved its new districts by a vote of 66 to 35, with one
Democrat, Charles Newton, voting in favor of the plan and three Democrats
53

abstaining from voting. (Ex. NPX 314). The House approved the new Senate
districts by a vote of 61 to 34 along party lines, with 4 Republicans and 5 Democrats
abstaining from the vote. (Ex. NPX 314). Governor Bentley signed the Acts into law
on May 31, 2012.
4. Evidence Presented by the Plaintiffs at Trial
At trial, the plaintiffs introduced the live testimony of 13 lay witnesses and 3
expert witnesses. The lay witnesses included Senator Tammy Irons (D); Senator Mark
Keahey (D); Senator Rodger Smitherman (D); Senator Vivian Davis Figures (D);
Senator Quinton Ross (D); Representative Laura Hall (D); Representative Joe
Hubbard (D); Democratic Conference plaintiff Lynn Pettway; Democratic
Conference plaintiff Rosa Toussaint; Democratic Conference plaintiff Framon
Weaver; Democratic Conference plaintiff Isabel Rubio; the Chairman of the Alabama
Democratic Conference, Dr. Joe Reed; and the President of the Alabama Chapter of
the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Bernard Simelton.
The expert witnesses included William S. Cooper, who drew alternative maps for the
Black Caucus plaintiffs; Allan J. Lichtman, who testified about racial polarization in
Alabama elections; and Theodore S. Arrington, who testified that, in his opinion, the
Acts packed black voters into majority-black districts to isolate and diminish their
political strength.

54

a. Testimony of Senator Tammy Irons
Senator Tammy Irons (D) testified that, in her opinion, the only explanation
for the changes made to her district in Act 603 is an intent to “crack” a minorityopportunity district in Senate District 7. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 149–51, Aug. 8, 2013). She
explained that her old district included all of Lauderdale County and part of Colbert
County, a community of interest commonly known as “the Shoals,” but that her new
district includes only a portion of Lauderdale County, a strip of land in the northern
portion of Limestone County that used to belong to District 2, and a section of
Madison County heavily populated by minorities that used to belong to District 7.
(Trial Tr. vol. 1, 148–51, Aug. 8, 2013). According to the 2010 Census, Senate
District 7 had a voting-age population that was 62.61 percent white and 30.90 percent
black. (Ex. NPX 351). Under Act 603, Senate District 7 will have a voting-age
population that is 67.83 percent white and 26.14 percent black. (Ex. NPX 361; Ex.
NPX 362). According to the 2010 Census, Senate District 1 had a voting-age
population that was 84.93 percent white and 12.20 percent black. (Ex. NPX 351).
Under Act 603, Senate District 1 will have a voting-age population that is 85.56
percent white and 10.66 percent black. (Ex. NPX 361; Ex. NPX 362).
Senator Tammy Irons also testified that she believes that the Republican Party
has a culture of hate toward women and minorities. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 180, Aug. 8,
2013). As support for this point, she testified that Republicans attempted to invoke
the rule of cloture 48 times in 2011 and were successful 43 times, which in her view
55

had the effect of silencing the voices of women and minorities. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 181,
Aug. 8, 2013). She also testified that she based her opinion on laws she had read, but
did not provide any specific examples. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 166, Aug. 8, 2013). And she
testified that, although she expressed her opinion to officials of the Department of
Justice, Attorney General Holder later precleared the Acts. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 178, Aug.
8, 2013).
We do not doubt that Senator Tammy Irons testified truthfully about her
opinions, but we do not credit her conclusions about the changes to her district or
about the Republican Party. The population statistics for the districts in the northern
portion of the State reveal the overpopulation of Senate District 7 and all of the
districts surrounding it. (Ex. APX 7). Senator Dial and Hinaman testified
consistently that the significant overpopulation of the northern districts, as well as the
underpopulation of the majority-black districts in the Black Belt caused a domino
effect that required changes to Senate District 7. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 35, 48, Aug. 8,
2013; Hinaman Decl.; Hinaman Depo. 31–32, June 25, 2013). And the decision to
invoke the rule of cloture to pass legislation that is being filibustered by a minority
party is not an invidiously discriminatory tactic.
b. Testimony of Senator Marc Keahey
Senator Marc Keahey (D) also testified on behalf of the plaintiffs. Senator
Keahey represents District 22, a sprawling district in southwest Alabama. (Trial Tr.
vol. 1, 182, Aug. 8, 2013; Ex. APX 48; Ex. APX 49). He testified that, after the
56

landslide elections for the Republicans in 2010, he was, at 17 months, the secondlongest serving white Democrat in the Senate. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 183, Aug. 8, 2013).
District 22 was a crossover district because its voting-age population in 2010 was only
27.50 percent black, but the district elected a Democrat preferred by black voters.
(Ex. APX 7; Tr. Trans. vol. 1, 182, Aug. 8, 2013). Under Act 603, District 22 has a
voting-age population that is 20.70 percent black. (Ex. APX 7). Senator Keahey
testified that, after he saw the working draft of the new districts, he brought several
proposed amendments to Senator Dial, all of which Senator Dial rejected on the
ground that the changes would result in the retrogression of Districts 23 and 24 to the
north, majority-black districts represented by Senator Hank Sanders (D) and Senator
Bobby Singleton (D) respectively. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 188–90, Aug. 8, 2013). Some of
Senator Keahey’s proposed amendments would have placed all of the MOWA Band
of Choctaw Indians in the same district. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 199, Aug. 8, 2013). He also
testified that, when he asked for changes to the districts, other senators asked him to
switch parties, but he declined. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 199–200, Aug. 8, 2013). We credit
Senator Keahey’s testimony.
c. Testimony of Senator Rodger Smitherman
Senator Rodger Smitherman (D), who represents majority-black Senate District
18 in Birmingham, testified that the new districts were unfair to the voters of
Jefferson County because of the structure of the local delegation, which is composed
of every legislator who represents voters in Jefferson County. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 11,
57

15–16, Aug. 9, 2013). Under both the 2001 Senate plan and Act 603, Jefferson
County residents vote in eight Senate districts, three of which are majority-black
districts and five of which are majority-white districts. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 7–8, Aug. 9,
2013; Ex. APX 17). But Act 602 changes the House districts in Jefferson County
because it moves one majority-black district to Huntsville and moves an additional
majority-white district into the County. Under the previous House plan, residents of
Jefferson County had voted in nine majority-black districts and nine majority-white
districts. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 7, Aug. 9, 2013; Ex. APX 41). Under the new House plan,
residents of Jefferson County will vote in eight majority-black districts and ten
majority-white districts. Because the new majority-white district that crosses into
Jefferson County includes a Democratic incumbent as a resident, the partisan balance
of the districts remains the same. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 7, 23–24, Aug. 9, 2013).
Senator Smitherman testified that, in his view, the balance of the Jefferson
County local delegation is unfair to black residents of Jefferson County and dilutes
their voting power. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 11, 13, Aug. 9, 2013). Local delegations act as
gatekeepers for county legislation in the Legislature, which ordinarily will not consider
or pass local legislation not approved by the local delegation. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 15–16,
Aug. 9, 2013). Although black voters in Jefferson County are ordinarily successful in
electing their preferred candidates in county-wide elections, they are unable to exercise
the same control over the local delegation because of the influence of suburban voters
on many of its members. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 15–16, Aug. 9, 2013). As an example,
58

Senator Smitherman cited an occupational tax supported by the senators elected by
the majority-black districts within Jefferson County, but opposed by the senators
elected by majority-white districts that extend to suburban counties, where many
people commute to work in Birmingham. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 16–17, Aug. 9, 2013).
Because a majority of the local delegation opposed the occupational tax, the
Legislature did not pass it. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 16–17, Aug. 9, 2013). Senator
Smitherman testified that, as a result of the failed tax, Jefferson County closed Cooper
Green Mercy Hospital, a charitable hospital for the indigent that formerly served
many of his constituents. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 19–21, Aug. 9, 2013). Senator Smitherman
also testified that the failure to pass the occupational tax had resulted in a loss of
security jobs at the state courthouses in Jefferson County. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 18–19,
Aug. 9, 2013).
Senator Smitherman acknowledged that he provided Senator Dial with a map
for the majority-black Senate districts in Jefferson County and that Senator Dial
adopted the substantial majority of that map. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 29–30, 40–41, Aug. 9,
2013). Senator Smitherman asked Senator Dial to maintain a similar racial balance in
the district, and Senator Dial agreed that he would try to accommodate that request,
so long as doing so would not result in retrogression in other districts. (Trial Tr. vol.
2, 25, Aug. 9, 2013). As of 2010, Senate District 18 had a black voting-age population
of 57.31 percent, and under Act 603, District 18 has a black voting-age population of
56.43 percent. (Ex. APX 7; Ex. NPX 362).
59

We credit most of Senator Smitherman’s testimony. We credit his testimony
about the makeup of the local delegation for Jefferson County and his testimony that
the occupational tax failed because of opposition from legislators who represent
suburban counties. And we credit Senator Smitherman’s testimony that he provided
Senator Dial a proposed map of the majority-black Senate districts in Jefferson
County and that Senator Dial incorporated a majority of that map into the new
districts. But we cannot credit Senator Smitherman’s testimony that Act 603 dilutes
the votes of the black population of Jefferson County as that testimony calls for a
legal conclusion that we must decide for ourselves.
d. Testimony of Senator Vivian Davis Figures
Senator Vivian Davis Figures (D), who represents District 33, a majority-black
district in Mobile County, testified on behalf of the plaintiffs. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 43,
Aug. 9, 2013). Senator Figures served on the Reapportionment Committee and
testified that, when the Committee met to establish guidelines for redistricting, the
Democratic members of that Committee had favored an overall deviation in
population of 10 percent because it allowed for more leeway, but the Republican
members of the Committee favored a lower overall deviation in population because
of the decision in Larios. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 46–49, Aug. 9, 2013). She testified that she
had no input in the creation of her district and that she never asked for the black
voting-age population to be increased in her district, but that the final plan increased
the black voting-age population in her district from 61.55 percent to 68.10 percent.
60

(Trial Tr. vol. 2, 45–46, Aug. 9, 2013; Ex. APX 7). She testified that, although she had
not examined the boundaries of her district, she knew it was packed. (Trial Tr. vol. 2,
50, Aug. 9, 2013).
Senator Figures testified that, since the Republican takeover of the Legislature
in 2010, she has felt that she has not had a voice in the Senate. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 51,
Aug. 9, 2013). She explained that she has served in the Legislature for 17 years and is
the Senate Minority Leader, but that the Republican supermajority is able to invoke
the rule of cloture and end debate on controversial issues. (Trial Tr. vol.2, 51–55,
Aug. 9, 2013). For example, Senator Figures explained that she had asked the Senate
Majority Leader not to close debate on the last version of the Alabama Accountability
Act—a controversial education bill—because she and some other Democratic
senators wanted to propose amendments to the bill, but a different Republican
Senator filed a cloture petition and the Democrats were not able to introduce
amendments. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 52–53, Aug. 9, 2013).
Senator Figures testified that she also felt her voice was silenced during the
passage of the new Senate districts, but she admitted on cross-examination that many
of the incidents she had cited as examples occurred for race-neutral reasons. For
example, she testified that she had not seen the final version of the bill until the day it
was introduced on the Senate floor, but she admitted that she had seen the first plan
of the new Senate districts two weeks before the Acts were passed and that the only
changes made to the second plan were minor alterations to put two Democratic
61

senators back in their districts because Senator Dial and Hinaman had inadvertently
drawn those senators out of their districts in the initial plan. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 62–64,
Aug. 9, 2013; Ex. CE 24). And she testified that debate on the Senate plan had been
cut off, but she also admitted that, under the Senate rules, a vote had to be
immediately taken on the bill when her Democratic colleague, Senator Keahey, asked
for the bill to be read at length a third time. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 61–62., Aug. 9, 2013).
She agreed that Senator Keahey’s request to have the bill read at length for the third
time, not any action by the Republicans, had the effect of cutting off debate on the
redistricting Acts. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 62, Aug. 9, 2013).
We credit most of Senator Figures’s testimony. We credit her testimony that
the Democratic members of the Committee voted in favor of a higher overall
deviation in population because it would give more leeway to meet other priorities
and that the Republican members favored a lower overall deviation in population
because of Larios. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 49, Aug. 9, 2013). We credit her testimony that
she did not meet with Hinaman or otherwise give input about her district and that she
never requested an increase in the percentage of the black population in her district.
(Trial Tr. vol. 2, 45–46, Aug. 9, 2013). And we credit her testimony that she believes
that her voice has been silenced because the Republicans are able to and have invoked
cloture on multiple occasions, including during consideration of the Alabama
Accountability Act. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 51–55, Aug. 9, 2013). But we do not credit her

62

testimony that her district is packed because that testimony amounts to a legal
conclusion.
e. Testimony of Senator Quinton Ross
Senator Quinton Ross (D) also testified on behalf of the plaintiffs. Senator
Ross represents Senate District 26, a majority-black district in Montgomery. (Trial Tr.
vol. 2, 123, Aug. 9, 2013). He testified that he had some limited conversations with
Senator Dial about the redistricting plans, but never sat down with Hinaman to draw
his district. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 124, Aug. 9, 2013). And he testified that the percentage
of black population in his district is much higher than it was under the 2001 plan.
(Trial Tr. vol. 2, 127, Aug. 9, 2013). He testified that Act 603 split several precincts in
his district, which will have a major economic impact on Montgomery County
because it will require the County to hire new personnel for the voting precincts.
(Trial Tr. vol. 2, 134–35, Aug. 9, 2013).
Senator Ross testified that the Republican supermajority has abused its power.
He used, as an example, the procedures followed by the Republican supermajority
when they passed the education bill known as the Alabama Accountability Act. (Trial
Tr. vol. 2, 135–41, Aug. 9, 2013). He explained that an initial draft of the bill that had
passed the Senate and passed, with some alterations from the House, was only eight
pages and had broad support from the Democratic members of the Legislature, but
that the Republican members of the conference committee substituted a significantly
longer bill for it over the objections of the Democratic members of the committee.
63

(Trial Tr. vol. 2, 135–38, Aug. 9, 2013). The Republican supermajority of the
Legislature then passed the conference bill over the strenuous objections of the
Democrats. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 138–41, Aug. 9, 2013).
We credit most of Senator Ross’s testimony. We credit his testimony that he
was never given the opportunity to work on his district with Hinaman, but we rely on
the statistics introduced into evidence about his districts instead of his description of
those statistics. In 2010, the total population of Senate District 26 was 72.75 percent
black, and the voting-age population was 70.87 percent black. (Ex. APX 7). Under
Act 603, the total population of Senate District 26 is 75.22 percent black, and the
voting-age population is 72.70 percent black. (Ex. APX 7; Ex. SDX 400). And we
credit Senator Ross’s testimony about the procedures used by the Republicans when
they passed the Alabama Accountability Act, but not his opinion that the procedures
amounted to an abuse of power.
f. Testimony of Representative Laura Hall
Representative Laura Hall (D) also testified on behalf of the Democratic
Conference plaintiffs. Representative Hall represents House District 19 in Madison
County. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 6, Aug. 12, 2013). In 2010, the total population of House
District 19 was 70.04 percent black. (Ex. APX 6). Under the new plans, District 19
gained some rural population, and the percentage of black population decreased to
61.5 percent. (Ex. APX 6). Representative Hall testified that she met with
Representative McClendon to discuss possible areas in which her district could gain
64

additional population because it was underpopulated, but she did not sit with
Hinaman at a computer to consider different options. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 22–24, Aug.
12, 2013).
Representative Hall also testified about the changes to Senate District 7
because she ran as the Democratic nominee for that district in 2010, but she lost in
the general election to Senator Paul Sanford (R). (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 8–9, Aug. 12, 2013).
Under the 2001 plan, District 7 included a strip of land in the middle of Madison
County from the Alabama-Tennessee border down the center of the County through
Huntsville. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 11, Aug. 12, 2013; Ex. SDX 477). The district included
most of urban Huntsville. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 12, Aug. 12, 2013; Ex. SDX 476).
Representative Hall testified that the new plan moved a portion of southwest
Huntsville, which is sometimes called “Little Mexico” because it has a “very viable”
Hispanic community, into Senate District 2 and moved a portion of northwest
Huntsville, which is predominantly black, into Senate District 1. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 13–
16, Aug. 12, 2013; Ex. NPX 353C). Senator Bill Holtzclaw (R) represents District 2,
and Senator Tammy Irons (D) represents District 1. Representative Hall agreed that
the “socioeconomic community interests” of the black population moved into
Senator Irons’s district is different from the black population formerly in Senator
Irons’s district because the black population in Huntsville “has a high population of
engineers [and] scientists” whereas the Florence area has “a very hard-working union
type of community.” (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 21–22, Aug. 12, 2013).
65

Representative Hall testified that Act 603 provides less favorable opportunities
for minorities in Huntsville than alternative plans advanced by the plaintiffs, (Trial Tr.
vol. 3, 18–20, Aug. 12, 2013), but she also acknowledged that all of the alternative
plans follow an overall deviation in population of 10 percent, (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 35,
Aug. 12, 2013). Under Act 603, Senate District 7 is overpopulated by just under 1
percent and has a total population that is 65.56 percent white, 27.34 percent black,
and 2.58 percent other. (Ex. SDX 400). The voting-age population is 67.83 percent
white and 26.14 percent black. (Ex. NPX 362). Under an alternative plan proposed
by Dr. Reed, District 7 would be underpopulated by 2.81 percent, and the proposed
district would have a total population that is 47.17 percent black, 43.58 percent white,
and 3.69 percent other. (Ex. CE 48). The plaintiffs failed to provide the Court with
voting-age statistics for that plan. The illustrative district introduced by the
Democratic Conference plaintiffs would be underpopulated by 4.96 percent and
would have a total population that is 42.02 percent white, 48.36 percent black, and
7.29 percent Hispanic. (Ex. NPX 302). The illustrative district would have a votingage population that is 45.18 percent white, 46.45 percent black, and 6.51 percent
Hispanic. (Ex. NPX 302). Representative Hall testified that both the plan proposed
by Dr. Reed and the Democratic Conference illustrative district would allow black and
Hispanic voters to form a coalition to reach 50 percent, but Act 603 has a smaller
minority population. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 18–19, Aug. 12, 2013).

66

And Representative Hall testified about a voter-suppression incident that
occurred in Senate District 7 during the last general election. Although she initially
testified that a conservative radio show host tried to suppress votes in District 7
during the general election by sending out a flier with the seal of the Secretary of State
that Republicans should vote Tuesday and African Americans should vote
Wednesday, (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 9, Aug. 12, 2013), she acknowledged on crossexamination that the announcement was about Republicans and Democrats, not race.
(Trial Tr. vol. 3, 36, Aug. 12, 2013). And she acknowledged that the Secretary of State
countered that misinformation and told the radio show host to cease and desist, but
Representative Hall insisted that the damage had already been done. (Trial Tr. vol. 3,
36, Aug. 12, 2013). Plaintiffs offered no evidence that any State official had anything
to do with the actions of the radio show host.
Representative Hall also testified, like several of her other Democratic
colleagues, that she is upset about the ability of the Republican supermajority in the
Legislature to invoke cloture. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 32, Aug. 12, 2013). She testified about
her dissatisfaction with the process by which the Republicans passed the Alabama
Accountability Act. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 27–32, Aug. 12, 2013). And she testified that she
felt that she had been “clotured more during this last quadrennium than the entire 20
years [she had] been in session.” (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 32, Aug. 12, 2013). Under the new
Republican supermajority, Representative Hall explained that she views it as
challenging at best to advocate on behalf of her district. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 32, Aug. 12,
67

2013). She testified that she has not been asked to switch parties, but that she would
not be very happy as a Republican. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 32, 36, Aug. 12, 2013).
We credit most of Representative Hall’s testimony. We credit her testimony
that she discussed her district with Representative McClendon, but did not sit down
with Hinaman to discuss potential changes. We credit her testimony that some of the
minorities who previously resided in Senate District 7 reside in new districts under
Act 603 and that those minorities will probably be less able to elect the candidate of
their choice under Act 603 than in the illustrative districts. And we credit her
testimony that the Republicans have invoked the rule of cloture to end debate by the
Democrats. We do not credit her initial testimony that the fliers were directed at only
African Americans because it is inconsistent with her later acknowledgement that the
flier was about Democratic voters and with the testimony of Senator Irons about the
incident. (Trial Tr. vol. 4, 153, Aug. 13, 2013).
g. Testimony of Representative Joe Hubbard
Initially elected in 2010, Representative Joe Hubbard (D) testified for the
Democratic Conference plaintiffs. Representative Hubbard represents House District
73, which Act 602 moved from Montgomery County to Shelby County. (Trial Tr. vol.
3, 37–38, Aug. 12, 2013). He testified that, after he had voted with Republicans on a
controversial jobs bill, the Republican Speaker of the House, Mike Hubbard, told him
that if he “played [his] cards right, [he] could have a long future in the Alabama House
of Representatives.” Representative Hubbard assumed that the Speaker was asking
68

him to switch parties, given that the Speaker’s chief of staff previously had extended
that invitation. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 40–41, Aug. 12, 2013). After he rejected that
invitation, the Committee introduced a new House plan, in which District 73 had
been moved to Shelby County. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 41–42, Aug. 12, 2013).
Representative Hubbard testified that he tried to get the agreement of the other
representatives in Montgomery County to reconstitute some of the neighborhoods he
had represented, but that Representative Jay Love (R), who has since resigned his
position, rejected the proposed amendments because they would have reduced the
percentage of the voting-age population in District 74 that was white. (Trial Tr. vol.
3, 42–43, Aug. 12, 2013). Representative Hubbard has purchased a new home in
District 74, the majority-white district formerly represented by Representative Love.
(Trial Tr. vol. 3, 45–46, Aug. 12, 2013). We credit this testimony.
h. Testimony of Dr. Joe Reed
The Democratic Conference plaintiffs also introduced the testimony of Dr. Joe
Reed, who appeared as a representative of the Alabama Democratic Conference.
(Trial Tr. vol. 2, 153, Aug. 9, 2013). He testified that the Alabama Democratic
Conference is an organization of Democrats founded in 1960 to advance the political
influence of blacks in Alabama. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 153–54, Aug. 9, 2013). The
organization is involved in voter registration and lobbying and, according to Reed, has
chapters in most of the counties in Alabama. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 153, 159, Aug. 9, 2013).
In those counties where the Conference does not have chapters, the Conference has
69

at least a contact. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 159, Aug. 9, 2013). The Conference endorses
candidates in almost every race for the Legislature. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 159–160, Aug.
12, 2013).
Reed testified that he has been involved in redistricting in Alabama since the
1970s and that he became involved to elect black candidates. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 154–56,
Aug. 9, 2013). He testified that, for a long time, he believed that a district needed to
be at least 65 percent black to allow the black voters to elect the candidate of their
choice because some blacks either are not registered to vote or are ineligible to vote.
(Trial Tr. vol. 2, 156–57, Aug. 9, 2013). And he testified that he now believes that a
district should be about 60 percent black to allow the voters to elect their candidate of
choice, although in some circumstances the percentage may need to be closer to 65
percent. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 156–58, Aug. 9, 2013).
Reed testified that he drafted an alternative plan for the Alabama Legislature,
which he showed Senator Dial at one of the public hearings. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 164–65,
Aug. 9, 20913; Ex. CE 42; Ex. CE 45). He testified that he viewed the plan as a
“status quo plan.” (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 165, Aug. 9, 2013). He testified that he tried only
to satisfy incumbents and meet the requirement of one person, one vote. (Trial Tr.
vol. 9, 165, Aug. 9, 2013). To accomplish the latter objective, he used an overall
deviation of 10 percent because that is the deviation that the Legislature had used in
the 2001 plan. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 165, Aug. 9, 2013). With this deviation, he was able
to keep District 73 in Montgomery County, but reduce the black population in that
70

district. (Trial Tr. vol. 9, 165–66, Aug. 9, 2013). Despite his efforts to satisfy all
incumbents, his plan caused one incumbent conflict in the House. (Trial Tr. vol. 2,
166, Aug. 9, 2013).
He testified that, as compared to his plans, the plans adopted by the Legislature
were bad for both blacks and whites. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 167–68, Aug. 9, 2013). He
explained that the adopted plans will cause significant problems for boards of
registrars because of the county and precinct splits, (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 168, Aug. 9,
2013), but he also acknowledged that the boards of registrars had fulfilled their duties
when the plans adopted in 1993 and 2001 split counties and precincts (Trial Tr. vol. 2,
171–73, Aug. 9, 2013). And he testified that the new plans would cause confusion for
voters for the same reasons, (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 168, Aug. 9, 2013), but acknowledged
that the boards of registrars were required by law to send postcards to voters about
their polling places and that he could challenge any failure to do so in court, (Trial Tr.
vol. 2, 173–74, Aug. 9, 2013). Reed asked the Court to send the issue of redistricting
back to the Legislature and tell it to apply an overall deviation in population of 10
percent. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 169–70, Aug. 9, 2013).
We credit most of Reed’s testimony. We credit Reed’s testimony that
redistricting is an inherently political process and that a drafter can draw a plan in
many ways. We credit Reed’s testimony that he formerly believed that a larger black
population was often needed to guarantee black voters the opportunity to elect their
candidate of choice than he now believes is necessary. And we credit Reed’s
71

testimony about his redistricting plan and about the reaction of registrars to the
precinct splits in the 1993 and 2001 redistricting plans, but we do not credit his
testimony that the plans adopted by the Legislature are bad for all black and white
citizens of Alabama.
i. Testimony of Lynn Pettway
Lynn Pettway testified as one of the Democratic Conference plaintiffs. He
explained that he resides in House District 73, which had experienced significant
minority growth between 2000 and 2010 and had elected Joe Hubbard, a white
Democrat, in 2010. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 177–79, Aug. 9, 2013). Pettway agreed that,
based on the statistics of Montgomery County in 2010, the majority-black districts
needed to gain population and that the districts in Shelby County needed to lose
population, (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 186, 189–91, Aug. 2, 2013), but he was dissatisfied with
the decision to move District 73 to address this problem, (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 185, Aug. 9,
2013). Pettway offered no alternative plan, but asserted that he believed that another
approach could have been taken to keep his district in place. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 189,
Aug. 9, 2013).
We credit most of Pettway’s testimony. We credit Pettway’s testimony that he
resides in District 73, that he believes that the minority population in that district has
increased over the last ten years, and that he is dissatisfied with the redistricting plans.
(Trial Tr. vol. 2, 177–79, 185, Aug. 9, 2013). But we rely on the census to determine

72

the shift in demographics of his district and the feasibility of maintaining District 73
within Montgomery County.
j. Testimony of Rosa Marie Toussaint
Rosa Marie Toussaint also testified as one of the Democratic Conference
plaintiffs. Toussaint voted in House District 19 under the districts established in
2001, but will vote in House District 10 under Act 602. (Trial Tr. vol. 4, 32–33, Aug.
13, 2013). Toussaint is a black citizen of Hispanic ethnicity. (Trial Tr. vol. 4, 19, Aug.
13, 2013). Toussaint lives in the Huntsville area and is a member of the HispanicLatino Advisory Committee, a member of the Hispanic American International
Chaplain Association, and a member of the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People. (Trial Tr. vol. 4, 20–21, Aug. 13, 2013). She
testified that she worked on Representative Laura Hall’s successful campaign for
House District 19 and her unsuccessful campaign for Senate District 7. (Trial Tr. vol.
4, 23, Aug. 13, 2013). Toussaint translated campaign signs into Spanish to reach out
to the Hispanic community in Huntsville and met weekly with several black and
Hispanic leaders to build a coalition between those two groups. (Trial Tr. vol. 4, 24–
25, Aug. 13, 2013). She testified that she believes her efforts have been successful and
that she believes the black and Hispanic communities in Huntsville vote for
Democratic candidates. (Trial Tr. vol. 4, 27, Aug. 13, 2013). And she testified that
the new Senate District 7 would give Hispanic voters less of an opportunity to elect
the candidate of their choice than the alternative illustrative districts provided by the
73

plaintiffs. (Trial Tr. vol. 4, 27–28, Aug. 13, 2013). She testified that, under either the
alternative plan proposed by Reed or the illustrative District 7 introduced by the
Democratic Conference plaintiffs, Hispanic voters would have a reasonable
opportunity, working in coalition with black voters, to elect a candidate of their
choice. (Trial Tr. vol. 4, 27–28, Aug. 13, 2013).
We credit much of Toussaint’s testimony. We credit her testimony that she
worked on Hispanic outreach for Representative Hall’s campaign and that she
believes her efforts were successful. We also credit her testimony that many Hispanic
voters in the Huntsville area have voted in a coalition with the black population. But
we do not credit her opinion testimony about whether Hispanics in Huntsville would
be able to elect the candidate of their choice under any of the plans presented because
she did not offer any factual basis to support her opinion that the candidate of choice
for the Hispanic population would necessarily be the same candidate of choice for the
black population. Her testimony that Hispanics and blacks have worked together in a
political coalition in Huntsville does not, by itself, prove that the candidate of choice
for the Hispanic population would regularly be the same candidate of choice for the
black population.
k. Testimony of Framon Weaver
Framon Weaver testified as a Democratic Conference plaintiff. Weaver is the
Chief of the MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians, which has approximately 4,000
members in the State of Alabama. (Trial Tr. vol. 4, 41, Aug. 13, 2013). The State of
74

Alabama has recognized the MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians, but the federal
government has not. (Trial Tr. vol. 4, 39, 47, Aug. 13, 2013). The Band lives along the
border between Washington County and Mobile County. (Trial Tr. vol. 4, 40–41,
Aug. 13, 2013; Ex. NPX 353-M). Weaver testified that the Band has worked closely
with black groups on political campaigns and that the Band has predominantly
supported Democratic candidates. (Trial Tr. vol. 4, 42–44, Aug. 13, 2013). And he
testified that, although the Band was able to elect its candidate of choice in coalition
with blacks in the old Senate District 22, it will not be able to do so under the Acts
because the Band is split between three different Senate districts—District 22, 23, and
34—and the black population is predominantly in District 23. (Trial Tr. vol. 4, 44–46,
Aug. 13, 2013).
We credit most of Weaver’s testimony. We credit Weaver’s testimony that he
has been elected the Chief of this state-recognized Band, and we credit Weaver’s
testimony about the size and location of the Band. And we credit Weaver’s testimony
that members of the Band are divided among three different senate districts, which
will make it more difficult for the Band to influence elections in those districts. We
do not credit Weaver’s testimony about the Band’s ability to elect its candidate of
choice under any of the plans presented because he did not offer any factual basis to
support his opinion that the candidate of choice for the black population would
necessarily be the same candidate of choice for the Band population.

75

l. Testimony of Isabel Rubio
The Executive Director of the Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama, Isabel
Rubio, testified on behalf of the Democratic Conference plaintiffs. She explained that
the Coalition is a nonprofit organization founded in 1999 to facilitate the social, civic,
and economic integration of Hispanics in Alabama. (Trial Tr. vol. 4, 9–10, Aug. 13,
2013). She acknowledged that much of the Hispanic population in Alabama is made
up of aliens, but she explained that some of those aliens have had children who are
now old enough to vote. (Trial Tr. vol. 4, 10–11, Aug. 13, 2013). Rubio testified at
length about her opinion that the Legislature has not been sensitive to the Hispanic
community in the State and that, as a result, many Hispanics have left the State and
others have become more politically active. (Trial Tr. vol. 4, 11–16, Aug. 13, 2013).
Rubio explained that Hispanics in the United States exhibited strong support for
President Obama in 2008 and 2012. (Trial Tr. vol. 4, 17, Aug. 13, 2013). And she
testified that the immigration legislation in Alabama has caused the Hispanic
population to work more closely with the black population in Alabama. (Trial Tr. vol.
4, 17–18, Aug. 13, 2013).
We credit much of Rubio’s testimony. We credit her testimony about the
Coalition and its work in Alabama. We also credit her testimony that, although a
substantial number of Hispanics in Alabama are aliens, some of those noncitizens
have citizen children of voting age. And we credit her testimony that the Hispanic
population in Alabama has begun to work more closely with the black population and
76

become more mobilized. But we decline to adopt, as immaterial, the opinions
expressed by Rubio about the immigration policies in Alabama.
m. Testimony of Bernard Simelton
The president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People in Alabama, Bernard Simelton, testified on behalf of the Democratic
Conference plaintiffs. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 194, Aug. 9, 2013). He testified that the
Association has been engaged in efforts to improve the relationship between the black
and Hispanic communities in Alabama. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 195, Aug. 9, 2013). He
testified that the communities have become closer because of their shared
disagreement with bills passed by the Republican Legislature. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 198–
99, Aug. 9, 2013). And he testified that the Association works actively with the
MOWA Indians in the Baldwin and Washington County area. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 202–
03, Aug. 9, 2013). We credit Simelton’s testimony about the Association’s
involvement with the Hispanic population and the MOWA Indians.
n. Testimony of Professor Allan J. Lichtman
Professor Allan J. Lichtman provided expert testimony that voting is racially
polarized in Alabama. (Ex. NPX 324). Lichtman conducted ecological regression
analysis based on county-level and precinct-level election returns to calculate how
black and white persons voted in recent senatorial, presidential, and judicial elections.
(Ex. NPX 324, 4). Based on this analysis, Lichtman concluded that in Alabama
“African Americans invariably prefer Democratic candidates in general elections and
77

[] whites invariably prefer Republican candidates.” (Ex. NPX 324, 4). In six general
elections, Lichtman determined that the mean support of blacks for black Democrats
was 94 percent and that the mean support of blacks for white Democrats was 92
percent. (Ex. NPX 324, 6-7). By contrast, the mean level of support by white voters
for black Democrats was 19 percent and the mean level of support by white voters
for white Democrats was 29 percent. (Ex. NPX 324, 6-7). Based on this data,
Lichtman found that “polarization between African Americans and whites in general
elections is greater when the Democratic candidate is African American rather than
white.” (Ex. NPX 324, 4). Lichtman’s ecological regression analysis also suggested
that 100 percent of black voters in Jefferson County, Madison County, and
Montgomery County vote for Democrats, regardless of whether the candidate is black
or white. (Ex. NPX 324, 13–15). Comparatively, white voters in Jefferson County
had a mean level of support for black Democrats of 19 percent and a mean level of
support for white Democrats of 33 percent, (Ex. NPX 324, 13); white voters in
Madison County had a mean level of support for black Democrats of 24 percent and
a mean level of support for white Democrats of 36 percent, (Ex. NPX 324, 14); and
white voters in Montgomery County had a mean level of support for black Democrats
of 20 percent and a mean level of support for white Democrats of 41 percent, (Ex.
NPX 324, 15).
We credit Lichtman’s testimony that most black voters in Alabama favor
Democrats and that most white voters in Alabama favor Republicans, but we do not
78

credit Lichtman’s opinion that race is the motivating factor for this voting pattern in
Alabama. Lichtman did not conduct any statistical analysis to determine whether
factors other than race were responsible for the voting patterns. He did not consider
affluence, strength of a political campaign, or party loyalty. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 102–05,
Aug. 12, 2013). Instead, he asserted repeatedly that the resulting voter patterns were
similar, which suggests that race is the motivating factor. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 91, 101–05,
Aug. 12, 2013). Lichtman also did not conduct any analysis of Democratic primaries
between black and white candidates, which might have offered further evidence about
whether white voters are more likely to support white Democrats and black voters are
more likely to support black Democrats. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 101–102, Aug. 12, 2013).
Lichtman also testified that the evidence suggests that Native Americans and
Hispanics in Alabama are politically cohesive. (Ex. NPX 324, 17). Lichtman
explained that 41 percent of the registered voters who vote at the McIntosh High
School precinct in Senate District 22 are Native Americans, and 23 percent of the
registered voters who vote at that precinct are black persons. (Ex. NPX 324, 17).
The precinct cast 75 percent of its votes for the Democratic incumbent, W.J. Pat
Lindsey, during the 2006 general election for the Legislature, and the precinct cast 87
percent of its votes for the Democratic candidate, Mark Keahey, during the 2010
general election. (Ex. NPX 324, 17–18). Based on these numbers from a single
precinct, Lichtman concluded that blacks and Native Americans ordinarily vote in
coalition. (Ex. NPX 324, 17, 20). Lichtman also reasoned that, because, “with the
79

exception of Cuban-Americans, Hispanics are overwhelmingly Democratic in their
choice of candidates” and because most of the Hispanic population in Alabama is not
Cuban American, the Hispanic population in Alabama must be politically cohesive.
(Ex. NPX 324, 20).
We do not credit Lichtman’s opinions about the political cohesiveness of
Native Americans and Hispanics in Alabama. Lichtman acknowledged that “[t]here is
an insufficient concentration of Native Americans or Hispanics in the state of
Alabama for ecological regression analysis.” (Ex. NPX 324, 17). And he relied upon
data from a single precinct to speculate about the voting behavior of Native
Americans and generalizations about Hispanics across the United States to speculate
about Hispanic voting patterns in Alabama. (Ex. NPX 324, 17). Lichtman’s
conclusions about the political cohesiveness of these groups are insufficiently
supported in the record.
Lichtman next testified that the illustrative districts introduced by the
Democratic Conference plaintiffs would give minorities a better opportunity to elect
the candidates of their choice. The Democratic Conference plaintiffs introduced an
illustrative map of Montgomery County that includes an additional majority-black
House district, (Ex. NPX 300); an illustrative map that preserves nine majority-black
House districts in Jefferson County, (Ex. NPX 301); and an illustrative map of a
minority-opportunity Senate district in Madison County, (Ex. NPX 302). Lichtman
acknowledged that he did not look at any statewide plans, (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 97, Aug.
80

12, 2013), but testified that the data from previous elections suggests that these
districts would provide minority voters a very good opportunity to elect candidates of
their choice, (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 97–98, Aug. 12, 2013). We credit Lichtman’s testimony
about these illustrative districts.
o. Testimony of William S. Cooper
William S. Cooper provided expert testimony about alternative redistricting
plans for the Black Caucus plaintiffs. Cooper testified that he has been preparing
redistricting plans for approximately 25 years and has worked with Maptitude since
the late 1980s. (Ex. APX 69, 2). Cooper drew the redistricting maps, HB16 and SB5,
introduced by Democratic members of the Legislature as alternatives to the plans
adopted by the Committee. (Ex. APX 69, 2). He used the data produced by the 2010
Census; the block equivalency files from the Alabama Reapportionment Office, which
were linked to the versions of the plans produced by the Committee; and lists of some
of the addresses of the incumbents. (Ex. APX 1, 2–4). When counsel for the Black
Caucus plaintiffs hired Cooper to draft alternative plans, counsel instructed Cooper to
preserve the same number of majority-black districts and to avoid county splits to the
extent possible, particularly within the Black Belt. (Ex. APX 1, 3). Cooper testified
that he drew the plan without any knowledge of Alabama politics, geography, or the
locations of incumbents, and that he spent only 40 hours on the project. And he
explained that he intended the plans that became HB16 and SB5 to serve as initial
drafts that he would alter based on input from legislators, (Ex. APX 1, 4), but the
81

schedule of the Legislature did not permit any changes to the plans before the
Democratic legislators introduced them. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 110, Aug. 12, 2013).
Cooper acknowledged that the Legislature needed to make significant changes
to the district lines because of the severe malapportionment of the existing districts,
(Trial Tr. vol. 2, 90, Aug. 9, 2013), but he explained that the Legislature could have
split fewer counties and precincts if the Committee had followed an overall deviation
in population of 10 percent, (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 69, Aug. 9, 2013). Cooper testified that
HB16 and SB5, which follow an overall deviation of 10 percent, split fewer counties
and precincts than the Acts. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 69, Aug. 9, 2013); see also (Ex. APX 25;
Ex. APX 26). Cooper explained that traditional redistricting principles protect the
integrity of precincts, but he admitted that the districts adopted in 2001 had a similar
number of precinct splits as the Acts. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 107, Aug. 9, 2013).
Cooper also testified that, in his opinion, the Acts pack the majority-black
districts. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 82–83, Aug. 9, 2013). He testified that the margins between
the white population and the black population in those districts are much larger in Act
602 than in the HB16 plan, which he referred to as “smoking gun evidence that shows
that there’s been some packing in the Act 602 house plan.” (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 82, Aug.
9, 2013). He also explained that the margins were smaller for the Senate districts, but
that the margins again suggest packing. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 83, Aug. 9, 2013). But he
acknowledged that most of the majority-black districts in his plans were
underpopulated by more than an overall deviation in population of 2 percent and that
82

his plan for the House did not increase the total black population in District 84 to
create a new majority-black district. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 83–84, Aug. 9, 2013).
We credit much of Cooper’s testimony. We credit Cooper’s testimony that the
Legislature could have split fewer county and precinct lines if it had adopted a higher
overall deviation in population. And we credit Cooper’s testimony that his plans
lowered the margins between the black and white populations in majority-black
districts. But we do not credit Cooper’s testimony that the Acts packed the majorityblack districts based solely on data that compares the Acts to Cooper’s plans without
any consideration of the previous plans and the Committee’s asserted goals to
maintain a lower overall deviation in population equality and to avoid retrogression in
those districts.
p. Testimony of Theodore S. Arrington
Theodore S. Arrington provided expert testimony on behalf of the Democratic
Conference plaintiffs that the majority-black districts were packed to isolate and
diminish the strength of black voters. Arrington testified that the 1993 and 2001
redistricting plans drawn by Democratic legislators constituted a “dummymander”
because they packed majority-black districts in a manner intended to help the
Democratic Party, but the plans in fact hurt the Party. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 49–50, Aug.
12, 2013). He testified that a 51 percent voting-age population is enough to give
minority voters the opportunity to elect the candidate of their choice anywhere in the
State, and he suggested that, “[c]ertainly, 54-56% concentration is enough
83

everywhere.” (Ex. NPX 323, 15, 17). He explained that, although experts used to
think that a minority presence of 65 percent was necessary to ensure that the minority
group would be able to elect the candidate of its choice, the increased registration and
mobilization of black voters has reduced that number. (Ex. NPX 323, 19). Arrington
speculated that black leaders may have agreed to have their districts “packed” in the
last round of redistricting because of uncertainty over the percentage of black voters
required to have an opportunity to elect their candidate of choice and because black
officials had a strong voice in the governing coalition. (Ex. NPX 323, 22).
We do not credit Arrington’s opinion that the districts in the new plan are
packed. Arrington admitted on cross-examination that, in 2000, he testified that a
district in which black persons made up a voting-age population of 61 percent would
offer only an opportunity for black voters to elect the candidate of their choice, not a
guarantee that black voters would be able to elect the candidate of their choice. (Trial
Tr. vol. 3, 80–81, Aug. 12, 2013). And he had also testified in 2000, contrary to his
testimony on direct examination in this matter, that no clear minimum could be set to
determine across jurisdictions what voting-age population is necessary to give a
minority group the opportunity to elect its candidate of choice. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 78,
Aug. 12, 2013). Arrington conceded that, if the Legislature had intended to pack
black voters, the Legislature could have overpopulated all of the majority-black
districts and that the new plans did not systematically overpopulate those districts.
(Trial Tr. vol. 3, 62–63, Aug. 12, 2013).
84

Arrington also testified that, in his view, the districts were enacted for a
discriminatory purpose. In his expert report, Arrington asserted that “[t]he purpose
of the enacted plans is to perpetuate or create a kind of ‘political apartheid’ such as
the Supreme Court rejected in Shaw v. Reno (509 U.S. 630 [1993]) and its progeny.”
(Ex. NPX 323, 10). He reasoned, “Since the face of the Alabama Republican Party is
white (e.g., all the G.O.P. legislators are white), the Republican super-majority in the
legislature designed the districts to create a situation where the Democratic Party in
the legislature would be all black.” (Ex. NPX 323, 11). As further support for the
existence of this strategy, Arrington cited as evidence the affidavits of several white
Democratic legislators who have been asked by Republicans to switch parties and the
affidavits of several black Democratic legislators who have never been asked. (Ex.
NPX 323, 11–12). Arrington also testified that, because the splitting of precincts
bears more heavily on minority voters, the high number of precinct splits in the Acts
is evidence of discriminatory purpose. (Ex. NPX 323, 36–38). And Arrington
suggested that the departure from normal procedures in the passage of the legislation
in a special session evidenced discriminatory intent, as did the greater access of
Republican legislators to see and make changes to the plans because Democrats had
only the illusion of participation in the process. (Ex. NPX 323, 54–59).
We do not credit Arrington’s opinion that the districts were enacted for an
invidious discriminatory purpose. On cross-examination, Arrington retreated from
many of the points he made in his report. For example, he admitted on cross85

examination that a party in power typically develops its plan by itself and that process
is not, standing alone, evidence of an intent to discriminate on the basis of race. (Trial
Tr. vol. 3, 71, Aug. 12, 2013). Arrington also admitted that he was unaware that the
Alabama Legislature had never redistricted itself during the first regular session after
the census, which undermined his opinion that the Legislature had deviated from
normal procedures when it enacted the redistricting plans. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 73, Aug.
12, 2013).
5. Evidence Presented by the State Defendants at Trial
The State defendants introduced the testimony of four witnesses to rebut the
evidence introduced by the plaintiffs. Senator Dial and Representative McClendon
testified at length about the goals of the Reapportionment Committee, the
development of the plans, and the input they received from legislators. Randy
Hinaman testified about his work on the plans. And Thomas L. Brunell testified as an
expert on behalf of the State defendants.
a. Testimony of Senator Gerald Dial
Senator Dial testified on behalf of the State defendants that the Committee had
six primary goals. First, the Committee wanted to comply with the requirement of
one person, one vote by making the districts as equally populated as possible. (Trial
Tr. vol. 1, 27, Aug. 8, 2013; Ex. CE 27). Second, the Committee wanted to avoid
future litigation about compliance with the requirement of one person, one vote.
(Trial Tr. vol. 1, 27, Aug. 8, 2013; Ex. CE 27). Third, the Committee wanted to
86

comply with the Voting Rights Act. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 27–28, Aug. 8, 2013; Ex. CE 27).
Fourth, the Committee wanted to comply with section 5 of the Voting Rights Act,
which it understood to require that it not reduce the number of majority-black
districts or the approximate levels of black population within those districts. (Trial Tr.
vol. 1, 28, Aug. 8, 2013; Ex. CE 27). Fifth, the Committee wanted to draw districts to
avoid incumbent conflicts. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 28, Aug. 8, 2013; Ex. CE 27). Sixth, the
Committee wanted to preserve communities of interest when possible. (Trial Tr. vol.
1, 28, Aug. 8, 2013; Ex. CE 27). With the exception of the decision to adopt an
overall deviation in population of 2 percent, the guidelines adopted by the Committee
were the same guidelines that had been used in 2001. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 27, 29, Aug. 8,
2013). And he testified that the Committee adopted the overall deviation of 2 percent
before Hinaman became involved in the process. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 138, Aug. 8, 2013).
Senator Dial testified that the Committee held public hearings to obtain input
from the public about how to draw the districts. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 30, Aug. 8, 2013).
The Committee held those hearings in 21 locations throughout Alabama before the
Committee produced any new plans, and the Committee advertised the hearings
through various forms of media. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 27–32, Aug. 8, 2013; Ex. CE 2). At
those hearings, members of the public asked the Committee not to split their
counties, and Senator Dial relayed that information to Hinaman. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 91,
Aug. 8, 2013). Senator Dial thought that the process was fairer than the process used
in the past because the Committee sought comments from the public before it
87

produced the plans, instead of afterward. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 25–26, 30–32, Aug. 8,
2013). But he also knew that it would be unable to accommodate all of the requests
of the public if the legislators were to comply with federal law. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 68–
69, Aug. 8, 2013).
Senator Dial also testified that he consulted each of his 34 colleagues in the
Senate about their preferences for their districts. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 34, Aug. 8, 2013).
He showed each senator the statistics for his or her district to explain how many
people the district needed to gain or lose to fall within the guideline for population
deviation. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 34–35, Aug. 8, 2013). And he asked each senator about
his or her preferences on population to gain or lose. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 34–35, Aug. 8,
2013). He promised each senator that he would not draw districts with incumbent
conflicts, but he could not accommodate all of the requests from his colleagues.
(Trial Tr. vol. 1, 36, Aug. 8, 2013).
Senator Dial explained that the systematic underpopulation of the majorityblack districts required significant changes to the district lines in the Senate, but that
he incorporated input from the legislators who represented those districts as he
enlarged those districts. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 37–38, 48, Aug. 8, 2013). He often refereed
disputes among senators to try to accommodate particular requests. (Trial Tr. vol. 1,
119, Aug. 8, 2013). And he specifically incorporated ideas from black legislators.
(Trial Tr. vol. 1, 37–38, Aug. 8, 2013).

88

In Jefferson County, all three majority-black districts needed to gain
population, and Senator Smitherman, a Democrat who represented one of those
districts, supplied Senator Dial with a map of proposed districts. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 40–
41, Aug. 8, 2013). Under that plan, Districts 18, 19, and 20 would gain population to
fall within the overall deviation of 2 percent and would remain entirely within
Jefferson County. (Ex. SDX 469). Dial adopted about 99 percent of that plan. (Trial
Tr. vol. 1, 96, Aug. 8, 2013). And Dial divided the rest of the population of Jefferson
County among five majority-white districts that extend outside of the County
boundaries. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 70–71, Aug. 8, 2013). Although Dial could have used
white population within Jefferson County to repopulate the majority-black districts,
he was concerned that doing so would have resulted in the retrogression of the
majority-black districts and potentially created a problem for preclearance. (Trial Tr.
vol. 1, 66, 69, Aug. 8, 2013).
In Mobile County, Senator Dial sought input from Senator Figures, who
represented a majority-black district in Mobile that needed to gain population. (Trial
Tr. vol. 1, 40, Aug. 8, 2013). Neither Senator Figures, nor any of the other senators
from Mobile County, wanted another senator to join the Mobile County delegation,
and the new plan accomplished that goal by changing the shape of District 22 to
absorb much of the overpopulation from District 32 across the Mobile Bay in
Baldwin County. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 40–41, 45, Aug. 8, 2013; Ex. APX 49). Senator
Sanders, who represented District 23, which bordered District 22 to the north, wanted
89

to gain minority members from District 22 and give up population in Autauga
County. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 36–38, Aug. 8, 2013). Senator Dial partially accommodated
those requests by removing District 23 from Autauga County and extending the
district partially into District 22. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 38, Aug. 8, 2013; Ex. APX 49).
Senator Dial also testified that the need to “grow” the majority-black districts
in the Black Belt had a domino effect on the districts along the western edge of
Alabama. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 35–36, Aug. 8, 2013). District 24 moved north, District 21
moved north, District 6 moved north, and District 1 moved west to accommodate
some of the overpopulation in the former District 2. (Ex. APX 17; Ex. APX 49; Ex.
APX 50). Senator Dial met with the senator from District 1, Senator Tammy Irons
(D), about the proposed changes to her district and accommodated some of her
requests, but was unable to accommodate further requests because he had no time to
introduce an amendment during the consideration of the Senate plan by the
Legislature. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 46–47, Aug. 8, 2013).
Senator Dial explained that the plans were introduced, considered, and
approved in a special session of the Legislature. He explained that the plans went
through the same process of committee hearings and consideration and debate on the
floor that any other piece of legislation would undergo in the Alabama Legislature.
(Trial Tr. vol. 1, 51, Aug. 8, 2013). He testified that a special session allows for greater
opportunity to engage in debate and consideration because the Legislature considers
no other bills during that time. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 51–52, Aug. 8, 2013). He also
90

testified that the Legislature in 2001 had also adopted its redistricting plans during a
special session. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 136–37, Aug. 8, 2013). He testified that the first time
he saw the alternative plans introduced at the special session, including the Sanders
plan and the Reed-Buskey plan, was in committee or on the Senate floor and that
none of the Senators who developed those plans ever consulted him or other
Republican legislators about those plans. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 141–42, Aug. 8, 2013).
Senator Dial testified that he had no goal or intent to discriminate against the
black population in Alabama during the redistricting. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 143–44, Aug. 8,
2013). He testified that no member of the Senate who represented a majority-black
district had ever asked for a district with a black population of only 55 percent, and
Senator Hank Sanders (D) told Senator Dial that he thought that all of the majorityblack districts should have a black population of at least 62 percent. (Trial Tr. vol. 1,
36–37, Aug. 8, 2013). Senator Dial testified that, if he had suggested to the senators
who represented the majority-black districts that new districts with black populations
of only 55 percent would be better for the black population in Alabama, those
senators would not have responded favorably to his suggestion that he knew better
than they did. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 43–44, Aug. 8, 2013). A former Democrat turned
Republican, Senator Dial testified that he had no contact with the Republican
National Committee during the reapportionment process, was not aware of any
national strategy to make the Republican Party the “white party” and the Democratic
Party the “black party,” and had no private conversations about that alleged strategy.
91

(Trial Tr. vol. 1, 59–60, Aug. 8, 2013). And he testified that, although the new
districts the Legislature adopted were not perfect or the only way to draw the districts,
they met the goals of the Committee to maintain the number of majority-black
districts, to maintain the approximate percentages of the black population in those
districts, to avoid incumbent conflicts, and to draw districts of approximately equal
size. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 143–44, Aug. 8, 2013).
b. Testimony of Representative Jim McClendon
Representative McClendon testified consistently with Senator Dial about the
adoption by the Committee of the guidelines. He explained that an overall deviation
of 2 percent just “ma[de] good sense” to him because it makes the districts more
equal. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 220, Aug. 12, 2013). He also testified that his impression was
that the Department of Justice did not have a specific baseline for retrogression, but
that it looked at relative numbers, so the Committee tried to match the percentages of
the total black population in majority-black districts to the percentages in the 2001
districts based on the 2010 Census numbers. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 221, Aug. 12, 2013).
Representative McClendon testified that he tried to accommodate requests
from his colleagues, Democratic and Republican, in the plan for the House of
Representatives. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 222, Aug. 12, 2013). Representative McClendon
testified that he offered to meet with all of the members of the House of
Representatives to discuss their new districts, but that not every member of the House
accepted that offer. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 222–23, Aug. 12, 2013). Representative Thad
92

McClammy (D) arranged a meeting with McClendon and, during that meeting,
provided McClendon a proposed plan for the majority-black districts in Montgomery
to which the other legislators had agreed. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 228–29, Aug. 12, 2013).
McClendon passed that map along to Hinaman, with the instructions to incorporate
that plan if possible. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 228–29, Aug. 12, 2013). And when
Representative Harper asked to gain 12 people from Greene County and the
neighboring representative agreed, he incorporated that change into the plan. (Trial
Tr. vol. 3, 229–30, Aug. 12, 2013).
Representative McClendon admitted that redistricting is a political process, but
denied having any racially discriminatory motive in his development of the
redistricting plans. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 234, Aug. 12, 2013). McClendon acknowledged
making several statements that, under the new plans, the number of Republicans in
the Alabama House would likely increase from 66 representatives to 68 to 70
representatives and that the number of Republicans in the Senate would increase from
22 senators to 23 to 25. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 240, Aug. 12, 2013; Ex. APX 58).
McClendon also admitted that, although he met with any member of the House who
wanted to meet with him, only Republicans were given the opportunity to meet with
Hinaman to work on their districts. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 246, Aug. 12, 2013). But he
denied any intent to eliminate white Democratic members from the Legislature. (Trial
Tr. vol. 3, 240, Aug. 12, 2013). He testified that he had no racially discriminatory
motive when he agreed to the adoption of an overall deviation of 2 percent. (Trial Tr.
93

vol. 3, 234, Aug. 12, 2013). And he testified that he had no racially discriminatory
motive when he worked with Hinaman and the members of the Alabama House of
Representatives to draft the new districts. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 234, Aug. 12, 2013).
c. Testimony of Randolph L. Hinaman
Randolph L. Hinaman also testified on behalf of the State defendants.
Hinaman is a political consultant who works primarily for members of the Republican
Party and who has been involved in Alabama politics since the mid-1980s, when he
served as the campaign manager and then the chief of staff for Congressman Sonny
Callahan (R-AL-01). (Ex. NPX 352). In 2011 and 2012, he worked on the
redistricting plans for the Alabama congressional delegation, which included six
Republicans and one Democrat, and he drew plans for that delegation with zero
deviation in population equality. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 116, Aug. 12, 2013; Ex. NPX 352).
Citizens for Fair Representation, Inc., a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization located in
Alabama, hired Hinaman to redraw the districts for the Alabama Legislature too. (Ex.
NPX 352). In accordance with his contract, Hinaman met with the Republican
leadership to determine the goals of the redistricting, and those leaders instructed him
to use an overall deviation in population of 2 percent, to preserve the majority-black
districts without retrogression, to avoid incumbent conflicts if at all possible, and to
comply with the other instructions included in the guidelines approved by the
Reapportionment Committee. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 117-18, Aug. 12, 2013).

94

Hinaman explained that the effort to preserve the majority-black districts and
bring them into compliance with the requirement of one person, one vote drove the
development of the Acts. All of the majority-black districts were underpopulated,
many significantly, and he needed to add population from contiguous districts to
increase the total population of the districts without significantly lowering the
percentage of the population in each district that was majority-black. (Trial Tr. vol. 3,
122–23, Aug. 12, 2013). He explained that the underpopulation of the majority-black
districts in the Black Belt caused Senate Districts 21 and 6 to move north; Senate
Districts 4, 5, and 1 to move east; and Senate District 22 to move south. (Trial Tr.
vol. 3, 122–24, Aug. 12, 2013). He also explained that the underpopulation in Senate
District 33 in Mobile County caused Senate District 34 to move and Senate District
22 to gain population from the overpopulated areas of Baldwin County. (Trial Tr.
vol. 3, 130–31, Aug. 12, 2013). And Hinaman explained that the majority-black
House districts in Jefferson County were around 70,000 people short of the ideal
population and any attempt to repopulate all nine of the majority-black districts with
the population in Jefferson County would cause retrogression to the point that the
plan might not be precleared. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 132–33, Aug. 12, 2013). For that
reason, Hinaman moved House District 53 to the Huntsville area, where he was able
to create another majority-black House district. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 131–32, Aug. 12,
2013). When necessary to avoid retrogression, Hinaman split precincts at the census
block level. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 143, Aug. 12, 2013).
95

Hinaman testified that “no one gets everything they want in redistricting,” but
he tried to accommodate the wishes of legislators where possible. (Trial Tr. vol. 3,
137, Aug. 12, 2013). He traveled to Alabama to meet with Republican legislators
every couple of weeks during the regular session of the Legislature. (Trial Tr. vol. 3,
119–20, Aug. 12, 2013). Where the Republican legislators agreed upon boundaries
and those particular boundaries did not pose a problem for either the requirement of
one person, one vote or for the preservation of the majority-black districts, he
accommodated those requests. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 120–21, Aug. 12, 2013). Hinaman
also accommodated the suggestions from Democratic legislators that he received
from Senator Dial and Representative McClendon. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 120, Aug. 12,
2013). Hinaman incorporated almost in its entirety a map of the majority-black
districts in Jefferson County drawn by one of the representatives for those districts.
(Trial Tr. vol. 3, 120, Aug. 12, 2013). And Hinaman partially incorporated a map of
the majority-black districts in Montgomery County produced by one of the
representatives for those districts. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 121, Aug. 12, 2013). Hinaman
also spoke with several Democratic members of the Legislature during the final week
before the passage of the bill and accommodated requests from those legislators when
all of the legislators affected by the requests agreed. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 135–36, Aug. 12,
2013).
Hinaman denied that he had any invidious purpose to discriminate against
blacks when he drew the new districts. When asked on cross-examination about
96

particular changes he could have made to the map, he responded that “you can pull
out any district and draw it without taking regard to all the things that are around it[,]
[b]ut unfortunately the whole map has to fit together.” (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 160, Aug. 12,
2013). He explained, for example, that a map that draws an additional majority-black
district in Montgomery County, like the Democratic Conference plaintiffs’ illustrative
map, does not account for the need to bring District 69, another majority-black
district, into Montgomery County. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 159–61, Aug. 12, 2013).
Hinaman also testified that he tried to draw another majority-black Senate district in
Madison County, but that he could not draw such a district within deviation. (Trial
Tr. vol. 3, 187, Aug. 12, 2013).
We credit the consistent testimony of Senator Dial, Representative McClendon,
and Hinaman about the Committee’s goals and the creation of the new districts. And
we credit the consistent and unequivocal testimony of Senator Dial, Representative
McClendon, and Hinaman that none of them acted with a racially discriminatory
purpose or motive during the redistricting process.
d. Testimony of Thomas L. Brunell
The State defendants introduced the expert testimony of Thomas L. Brunell to
refute the expert testimony offered by the plaintiffs. Brunell testified that the
adoption of the overall deviation in population of 2 percent is consistent with the
decisions of other states around the country after Larios and benefits all citizens in
Alabama. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 197–201, Aug. 12, 2013; Ex. SDX 458). He explained that,
97

although the Acts created many safe Republican seats, the overall deviation of 2
percent prevented the Legislature from creating a severe partisan gerrymander. (Trial
Tr. vol. 3, 198–99, Aug. 12, 2013). He testified that the statistics from other states
confirm that lower population deviations are less closely aligned with partisanship.
(Trial Tr. vol. 3, 205, Aug. 12, 2013). And he explained that a lower population
deviation is inherently more equal than a higher population deviation and that equality
was the driving force behind the redistricting revolution. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 197–98,
Aug. 12, 2013).
Brunell also testified that Arrington and Lichtman drew improper inferences
about the voting behavior of the black population in Alabama when those experts
opined that the districts were packed. Brunell explained that Arrington relied on the
voting behavior in House District 85 to extrapolate about behavior across the State,
but that voting behavior is affected by a number of factors that will vary across the
State, including the proportion of black and white voting-age population, the degree
of cohesiveness among black and white voters, and the typical proportion of turnout.
(Ex. SDX 456, 4–5). He testified that none of the experts in this matter has offered
any empirical evidence to substantiate the opinion that a district with a voting-age
population that is 51 percent black will provide black voters the opportunity to elect
the candidate of their choice. (Ex. SDX 456. 4–5).
And Brunell testified, contrary to Cooper and Arrington, that the bimodal
distribution of white and black populations in districts is neither bad policy nor illegal.
98

As he explained, elected officials who represent highly competitive districts will find it
more difficult to represent their districts because the voters of those districts will be
so closely divided on controversial issues. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 206, Aug. 12, 2013). If 50
percent of the voters in a district support a higher minimum wage and 50 percent
want to abolish the minimum wage, the representative will have represented only half
of the voters in the district no matter which policy option the representative favors.
(Trial Tr. vol. 3, 206, Aug. 12, 2013).
We credit Brunell’s testimony that lower population deviations constrain the
partisan desires of Legislatures, that the record evidence is insufficient to support any
conclusion about the minimum level of the black voting-age population necessary to
allow the black population to elect its candidate of choice, and that representation of
competitive districts is more difficult than representation of a politically cohesive
district.
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We divide our discussion in two parts. First, we consider the claims of vote
dilution made by the Black Caucus and Democratic Conference plaintiffs. Second, we
consider the claims based on intentional discrimination made by the Black Caucus and
Democratic Conference plaintiffs.
A. Vote Dilution
“A plaintiff claiming vote dilution under § 2 must initially establish that: (i) the
racial group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in
99

a single-member district; (ii) the group is politically cohesive; and (iii) the white
majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it . . . usually to defeat the minority’s
preferred candidate.” Reno v. Bossier Parish Sch. Bd., 520 U.S. 471, 479, 117 S. Ct. 1491,
1498 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30,
50–51, 106 S. Ct. 2752, 2766–67 (1986). The Supreme Court first established these
conditions in Gingles, when it interpreted for the first time the 1982 revisions to
section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. See Gingles, 478 U.S. at 50–51, 106 S. Ct. at 2766–
67. “When applied to a claim that single-member districts dilute minority votes, the
first Gingles condition requires the possibility of creating more than the existing
number of reasonably compact districts with a sufficiently large minority population
to elect candidates of its choice.” Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1008, 114 S. Ct.
2647, 2655 (1994). When no showing of intentional discrimination has been made, “a
sufficiently large minority population” means greater than 50 percent of the votingage population. Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1, 15, 18-19, 129 S. Ct. 1231, 1244-46
(2009) (plurality opinion). And the first Gingles condition should not be read to define
dilution as a failure to maximize. De Grandy, 512 U.S. at 1016, 114 S. Ct. at 2659; see
also id. at 1017, 114 S. Ct. at 2660 (“One may suspect vote dilution from political
famine, but one is not entitled to suspect (much less infer) dilution from mere failure
to guarantee a political feast. . . . Failure to maximize cannot be the measure of § 2.”).
The Supreme Court has never explicitly recognized the ability of a minority
voter to state a claim for vote dilution in violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights
100

Act based on evidence of a coalition of two different minority groups, see Strickland,
556 U.S. at 13–14, 129 S. Ct. at 1242–43, but the Eleventh Circuit has held that “[t]wo
minority groups (in this case blacks and hispanics) may be a single section 2 minority
if they can establish that they behave in a politically cohesive manner.” Concerned
Citizens of Hardee Cnty. v. Hardee Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 906 F.2d 524, 526 (11th Cir.
1990). Although other circuits have disagreed with that decision, see, e.g., Hall v.
Virginia, 385 F.3d 421, 431 (4th Cir. 2004) (“A redistricting plan that does not
adversely affect a minority group’s potential to form a majority in a district, but rather
diminishes its ability to form a political coalition with other racial or ethnic groups,
does not result in vote dilution ‘on account of race’ in violation of Section 2.”); Frank
v. Forest Cnty., 336 F.3d 570, 575 (7th Cir. 2003) (describing as “problematic” the
argument that a voter can state a claim for vote dilution based on a coalition of two
minority groups); Nixon v. Kent Cnty., 76 F.3d 1381, 1387 (6th Cir. 1996) (“A textual
analysis of § 2 reveals no word or phrase which reasonably supports combining
separately protected minorities.”), we are bound by it, see Ala. NAACP State Conf. of
Branches v. Wallace, 269 F. Supp. 346, 350 (M.D. Ala. 1967) (three-judge court). A
plaintiff who proves that two minority groups are politically cohesive may satisfy the
first Gingles factor if a reasonably compact district could be formed in which those two
minority groups make up a majority of the voting-age population.
After the plaintiff has established the three Gingles elements, the plaintiff must
also establish that the totality of the circumstances supports a finding that the voting
101

scheme is dilutive. Bossier Parish, 520 U.S. at 479, 117 S. Ct. at 1498. Relevant factors
to this analysis include (1) the history of voting-related discrimination in the State; (2)
the extent to which voting is racially polarized in the State; (3) the extent to which the
State has used voting practices that tend to enhance the opportunity of discrimination
against the minority group; (4) if there is a candidate slating process, the extent to
which members of the minority group have been denied access to that process; (5) the
extent to which members of the minority “bear the effects of discrimination in such
areas as education, employment and health, which hinder their ability to participate
effectively in the political process”; (6) the extent to which political campaigns have
included overt or subtle racial appeals; and (7) the extent to which members of the
minority have been elected to public office. See Gingles, 478 U.S. at 36–37, 106 S. Ct.
at 2759. Proportionality of majority-minority districts at the statewide level is a
relevant fact in the totality of the circumstances. See League of United Latin Am. Citizens
v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 437, 126 S. Ct. 2594, 2620 (2006). And, in some cases, a
“significant lack of responsiveness” by elected officials to the needs of a minority
group or a tenuous policy underlying the voting procedure adopted might also be
probative of vote dilution. See Gingles, 478 U.S. at 37, 106 S. Ct. at 2759. But the
“defendant in a vote dilution case may always attempt to rebut the plaintiff’s claim by
introducing evidence of objective, non-racial factors under the totality of the
circumstances standard.” Nipper v. Smith, 39 F.3d 1494, 1513 (11th Cir. 1994).

102

1. The Black Caucus Plaintiffs Failed To Prove the First Gingles Requirement for All
of Their Claims.
The Black Caucus plaintiffs raise three different theories of vote dilution, but
they failed to prove the first Gingles condition for all three theories. The Black Caucus
plaintiffs argue that the Acts dilute the voting strength of blacks across the State, but
they failed to prove that an additional majority-black district could be created
anywhere in the State. The Black Caucus plaintiffs argue that the Acts dilute the
voting strength of blacks in Madison County, but they failed to prove that the
Legislature could have created a coalitional district in Senate District 7 in which the
coalition made up a simple majority of the district. And the Black Caucus plaintiffs
argue that the Acts dilute the voting strength of blacks in Jefferson County because
they shift the balance between majority-white and majority-black House districts, but
they failed to introduce a plan that draws another majority-black district in Jefferson
County within the allowable population deviation. (Doc. 174: Mem. Op. & Order).
First, the Black Caucus plaintiffs argued that the Acts dilute the voting strength
of blacks across the State, but they failed to prove that the Legislature could have
created an additional reasonably compact district with a black voting-age population
of greater than 50 percent anywhere in the State. See Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S.
997, 1008, 114 S. Ct. 2647, 2655 (1994); see also Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1, 18–19,
129 S. Ct. 1231, 1245 (2009) (plurality opinion). The Black Caucus plaintiffs
introduced HB16 and SB5 as evidence, but those plans do not create any additional
103

majority-black districts. Instead, those plans actually create fewer opportunities for
black voters to elect the candidates of their choice than does Act 602. Act 602
preserved the same 27 majority-black districts from the 2001 plan and increased the
black percentage in District 85 to make it a majority-black district in total population,
though only a plurality district in voting-age population. HB16 also increased the
voting-age black population in District 85 to make it a majority-black district, but did
so at the cost of a formerly majority-black district. Under that plan, District 84, which
was a majority-black district under the 2001 plan, would have a voting-age population
that is only 24.73 percent black. Because the Black Caucus plaintiffs have failed to
prove that the Legislature could have created an additional majority-black district and
because the only plan they offered actually creates fewer opportunities for black
voters in Alabama to elect their candidates of choice, the Black Caucus plaintiffs have
failed to satisfy their burden.
And even if the plans offered by the Black Caucus plaintiffs contained an
additional majority-black district, we would conclude that the Black Caucus plaintiffs
failed to satisfy the first Gingles requirement because the plans do not comply with the
guideline of an overall deviation in population of 2 percent. The Committee adopted
a guideline that required the redistricting plans to comply with an overall deviation of
2 percent, and the Committee was entitled to adopt that guideline. Section 2 of the
Voting Rights Act concerns political processes that “are not equally open to
participation by [minority groups] . . . in that its members have less opportunity than
104

other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect
representatives of their choice.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973(b). Nothing in section 2 of the
Voting Rights Act would require the State to adopt a higher population deviation and
a less equal system for the election of its representatives to give minorities a better
opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political
process. Stated differently, minority voters are not entitled to greater voting power
than non-minority voters. The Black Caucus plaintiffs cannot satisfy the first Gingles
requirement with an illustrative plan that fails to meet the guideline of an overall
deviation of 2 percent.
Second, the Black Caucus plaintiffs argued that Act 603 diluted the voting
strength of black and Hispanic voters in Senate District 7, but they again failed to
prove that the Legislature could have created a majority-minority district in that area.
Under SB5, Senate District 7 would have a voting-age population that is 40.10 percent
black and 5.46 percent Hispanic. (Ex. APX 23). The Black Caucus plaintiffs
presented some testimony that the Hispanic voters in Senate District 7 are politically
cohesive with black voters, but we need not decide whether they have met their
burden on that point. Even if the black and Hispanic voters in Senate District 7 are
politically cohesive, the minority groups do not make up a simple majority of the
voting-age population in the district drawn in SB5. See Strickland, 556 U.S. at 15, 129
S. Ct. at 1243. Because the Black Caucus plaintiffs have not proved that any coalition
of black and Hispanic voters in Madison County is sufficiently large and
105

geographically compact to make up a simple majority of Senate District 7, the Black
Caucus plaintiffs cannot establish the first Gingles requirement. See id. And, in the
alternative, we conclude that the Black Caucus plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to
establish the first Gingles requirement because their plan for Senate District 7, like their
plan for the State as a whole, follows an overall deviation in population of 10 percent.
Third, the Black Caucus plaintiffs argue that Act 602 dilutes the votes of black
voters in Jefferson County because the Act moved one of the majority-black House
districts out of Jefferson County, but the Black Caucus plaintiffs have not produced a
plan that would draw an additional majority-black district in Jefferson County without
eliminating a majority-black district in another part of the State and would comply
with the allowable overall deviation of 2 percent. HB16 draws nine majority-black
districts in Jefferson County, (Ex. APX 11), but it follows an overall deviation of 10
percent. For the reasons already explained, the State was entitled to try to comply
with the requirement of one person, one vote by setting an overall deviation in
population of 2 percent. And the Black Caucus plaintiffs cannot prove vote dilution
with illustrative maps that do not meet this requirement.
The Black Caucus plaintiffs also argue that the new Acts dilute the voting
strength of black voters in Jefferson County because of the change in the balance of
the local House delegation, but that claim is not justiciable for the reasons stated in
our previous order, (Doc. 174: Mem. Op. & Order), and even if it were, the claim
would fail on the merits. Any system of local delegations for the next Legislature has
106

not been adopted and will not be adopted until the organizational session conducted
by the newly elected members in January 2015. Because we cannot know if a system
of local delegations will be adopted by the next Legislature or how it will be
structured, the claim is not ripe for review and the Black Caucus plaintiffs lack
standing to raise it. But, even if we could consider the claim, it would fail on the
merits because the Black Caucus plaintiffs failed to prove that a plan could be drawn
within the overall deviation in population of 2 percent that would contain the balance
they seek.
2. The Democratic Conference Plaintiffs Also Failed To Prove the First Gingles
Requirement for All of Their Claims.
The Democratic Conference plaintiffs also raised three claims of vote dilution,
each of which fails on the first Gingles requirement. The Democratic Conference
plaintiffs argued that Act 602 dilutes the strength of black voters in Jefferson County,
but failed to provide an illustrative statewide plan that includes an additional majorityblack House district in Jefferson County. The Democratic Conference plaintiffs
argued that Act 602 dilutes the strength of black voters in Montgomery County, but
they failed to provide an illustrative statewide plan that includes an additional
majority-black district in Montgomery County. And the Democratic Conference
plaintiffs argued that Act 603 dilutes the strength of minority voters in Madison
County, but they failed to provide an illustrative map for a majority-minority
coalitional district in Senate District 7.
107

First, the Democratic Conference plaintiffs argued that Act 602 dilutes the
voting strength of black voters because it fails to create a minority opportunity House
district in Jefferson County, but they failed to prove that the Legislature could have
created an additional majority-black district in Jefferson County. The Democratic
Conference plaintiffs submitted an illustrative map that divides Jefferson County into
15 House districts, nine of which are majority-black districts. But the illustrative map
cannot satisfy the first Gingles requirement because it does not fit within a statewide
plan as a whole. Act 602 includes several House districts that cross into Jefferson
County, and a new plan for Jefferson County cannot be simply inserted into the state
plan. As Hinaman repeatedly explained, one can always redraw lines in a particular
county, but the key is to fit the illustrative map into a statewide plan. The illustrative
map also underpopulates each majority-black district by almost 5 percent. (Ex. NPX
301). As we explained, the State was entitled to choose a lower population deviation,
and the plaintiffs cannot establish a results claim under section 2 when the black
population of Jefferson County is not sufficiently large and compact to create an
additional majority-minority district within that deviation.
The Democratic Conference plaintiffs also argued that Act 602 dilutes the
voting strength of blacks because it fails to create an additional majority-black House
district in Montgomery County, but the Democratic Conference plaintiffs have again
failed to prove the first Gingles requirement. The Democratic Conference plaintiffs
introduced an illustrative map that divides all of Montgomery County into five House
108

districts. Four of those districts are majority-black districts. And, unlike the
Democratic Conference plaintiffs’ illustrative map for Jefferson County, the
illustrative map for Montgomery County complies with the overall deviation of 2
percent. But, again, the illustrative map is not drawn in the context of a statewide
plan. Act 602 brought an additional majority-black House district, District 69, into
Montgomery County. The Democratic Conference plaintiffs’ illustrative map does
not account for the domino effect that its plan could have on District 69 or the other
neighboring majority-black districts. In the absence of a statewide plan drawn to
comply with overall deviation in population of 2 percent, we cannot conclude that the
Democratic Conference plaintiffs have met the first Gingles requirement.
The Democratic Conference plaintiffs also argue that Act 603 dilutes the black
voting strength in Madison County, but the Democratic Conference plaintiffs have
again failed to satisfy the first Gingles requirement. The Democratic Conference
plaintiffs introduced an illustrative map in which Senate District 7 would be
underpopulated by 4.96 percent and would have a voting-age population that is 45.18
percent white, 46.45 percent black, and 6.51 percent Hispanic. But this illustrative
map fails to satisfy the first Gingles requirement for the same reasons that the other
illustrative maps failed: it does not comply with the overall deviation in population of
2 percent, and it is drawn in isolation instead of as part of a statewide plan.
Additionally, the record is not clear that the minority population would reach a
majority of the voting-age population in this illustrative district, even if we concluded
109

that the black and Hispanic populations in the area were politically cohesive. Both
Rubio and Toussaint testified that a significant number of the Hispanics in the
Huntsville area are not eligible to vote because they are not citizens.
3. The Plaintiffs’ Claims of Dilution by Packing Fail Too.
Both the Black Caucus plaintiffs and the Democratic Conference plaintiffs also
contend that Acts 602 and 603 dilute the strength of black voters by “packing” them
into majority-black districts, that is, by “concentrati[ng] . . . blacks into districts where
they constitute an excessive majority,” Gingles, 478 U.S. at 46 n.11, 106 S. Ct. at 2764
n.11, but the record establishes otherwise. As the previous sections explain, neither
set of plaintiffs offered any evidence that the Legislature could have drawn another
majority-black district for either the House or the Senate as part of a statewide plan
with an overall deviation in population of 2 percent. Even though the former districts
in both houses, after the 2010 Census, were systematically and, in many cases, severely
underpopulated, the Legislature chose to maintain 8 majority-black districts in the
Senate and to increase the number of majority-black districts in the House from 27 to
28 based on total population. Act 602 increased slightly the percentage of the black
population in 14 of the former majority-black House districts, decreased slightly the
population in the other 13 majority-black House districts, and created 1 new majorityblack House district in total population. Act 603 increased slightly the percentage of
the black population in 5 of the 8 majority-black Senate districts and decreased slightly
the percentage of the black population in the other 3 majority-black Senate districts.
110

The percentages of the black voting-age population in majority-black House districts
range from 47.22 percent to 74.28 percent, and the percentages of the black votingage population in majority-black Senate districts range from 56.43 percent to 72.70
percent. The percentages of black voters in 20 of the 28 majority-black House
districts are below 65 percent, and the percentages of black voters in 11 of those
House districts are below 60 percent. Only 3 of the 28 majority-black House districts
have a black voting-age population in excess of 70 percent, and two of those three
districts are underpopulated. The percentages of black voters in 6 of the 8 Senate
districts are below 65 percent, and the percentages of black voters in 4 of those Senate
districts are below 60 percent. Only 1 majority-black Senate district has a black
voting-age population in excess of 70 percent, and that district is underpopulated.
The overwhelming majority of the majority-black districts, under both Acts, remain
underpopulated, which is the opposite of what we would expect in a plan that packs
black voters into majority-black districts. Of the 28 majority-black House districts, 21
remain underpopulated, and 6 of the 8 majority-black Senate districts remain
underpopulated. Even the 8 House districts and 2 Senate districts that are
overpopulated are within 1 percent of the ideal population for a district. And the
majority-black districts under the Acts are roughly proportional to the black votingage population. That is, black persons are 24.86 percent of the voting-age population
in Alabama, and under the Acts, 22.86 percent of the Senate districts and 26.67

111

percent of the House districts are majority-black districts. Nothing about Acts 602
and 603 suggests that the Legislature diluted black voting strength through packing.
The plaintiffs complain that the Legislature should have reduced substantially
the percentages of black voters in several of the majority-black districts to increase the
influence of black voters in adjacent majority-white districts, but there are, at least,
two problems with that argument. First, the Supreme Court has held that section 2 of
the Voting Rights Act does not require the creation of either influence districts, League
of Latin Am. Citizens, 548 U.S. at 445, 126 S. Ct. at 2594, or crossover districts,
Strickland, 556 U.S. at 14, 129 S. Ct. at 1243. These decisions make clear that the
central concern of section 2 in redistricting is the creation of compact, majority-black
districts where necessary to allow black voters an opportunity to elect their preferred
candidates: “Nothing in § 2 grants special protection to a minority group’s right to
form political coalitions.” Id. Second, the plaintiffs utterly failed to prove how the
Legislature could have accomplished this task. The plaintiffs again offered no
evidence that the Legislature could have drawn more majority-black districts. Reed
testified at trial that a majority-black district ordinarily needs to be about 60 percent
black to allow black voters to elect their candidate of choice, and he stated that
sometimes the percentage may need to be closer to 65 percent. And black legislators
told the Committee at public hearings that majority-black districts ordinarily needed
to have similar percentages of black voters. But the plaintiffs failed to present any
evidence of how the Legislature could have drawn, in a statewide plan, the same
112

number of majority-black districts with 60 or more percent black voters in those
districts with an overall deviation in population of 2 percent while still increasing the
number of influence or crossover districts.
4. Even if the Plaintiffs Had Proved All Three Gingles Requirements or the Packing of
Black Voters, the Totality of the Circumstances Does Not Support a Claim of Vote
Dilution.
Even if the plaintiffs had proved all the Gingles requirements or the packing of
black voters, they still would have been required to prove that “the totality of the
facts, including those pointing to proportionality, showed that the new scheme would
deny minority voters equal political opportunity.” De Grandy, 512 U.S. at 1013–14,
114 S. Ct. at 2658. Relevant factors include the history of voting-related
discrimination in the State; the racial polarization of voting in the State; the extent to
which the State has used discriminatory voting practices to enhance the opportunity
for discrimination against the minority group; the extent to which minority group
members bear the effects of past discrimination in areas such as education,
employment, and health; the extent to which political campaigns have included overt
or subtle racial appeals; the extent to which members of the minority have been
elected to public office; the level of responsiveness of elected officials to the needs of
a minority group; and the proportionality of majority-minority districts. See League of
United Latin Am. Citizens, 548 U.S. at 437, 126 S. Ct. at 2620; Gingles, 478 U.S. at 36–
37, 106 S. Ct. at 2759.

113

No one can deny the abhorrent history of racial and voting-related
discrimination in Alabama. The egregious practices of the past led to some of the
landmark decisions in this area of law. See, e.g., Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S. Ct.
1362 (1964); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339, 81 S. Ct. 125 (1960). For nearly 50
years, Alabama was subject to the preclearance requirement under section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act. See Shelby Cnty., Ala. v. Holder, --- U.S. ---, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013).
But that history of discrimination alone cannot establish that these particular
Acts would deny minority voters equal political opportunity today. Earlier this year,
the Supreme Court declared the coverage formula in section 4 of the Voting Rights
Act, which subjected Alabama to the preclearance requirement, to be unconstitutional
because Congress had not made sufficient findings to support its conclusion that the
preclearance requirement is still necessary in Alabama. As the Supreme Court
explained, “[v]oter turnout and registration rates now approach parity,” “minority
candidates hold office at unprecedented levels,” and “[t]he tests and devices that
blocked access to the ballot have been forbidden nationwide for over 40 years.” See
id. at 2625 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that the totality of the circumstances does not support the
conclusion that the Acts would deny black voters an equal opportunity to participate
in the political process, and four factors weigh heavily in favor of our conclusion.
First, black voters in Alabama are highly politically active. Second, black voters have
successfully elected the candidates of their choice in the majority-black districts.
114

Third, the majority-black districts are roughly proportional to the black voting-age
population in Alabama. Fourth, the record contains no evidence of racial appeals in
recent political campaigns or of a significant lack of responsiveness to the needs of
the black population.
First, as the plaintiffs’ own experts testified, black voters in Alabama are
politically active and registered to vote in high numbers. Lichtman testified that
“[t]oday African American participation in elections in Alabama is at least comparable
and likely above white participation.” (Ex. NPX 324, 20). And Arrington agreed that
“minority voters have become more likely to register and better mobilized,” which
informed his opinion that majority-black districts could be created with smaller
percentages of blacks. (Ex. NPX 323, 19–20). Reed testified that the Alabama
Democratic Conference, which is an organization dedicated to the improvement of
political opportunities for black voters, is active across the State and endorses
candidates in almost every race. And Bernard Simelton testified that the Alabama
Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has also
worked to build coalitions around the State with Hispanics and Native American
groups like the MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians to increase the political influence of
black voters.
Second, black voters have successfully elected the candidates of their choice in
the majority-black districts. In the House of Representatives, all 27 of the majorityblack House districts are represented by Democrats, and 26 of those 27 districts are
115

represented by black Democrats. In the Senate, all of the majority-black Senate
districts are represented by Democrats, and seven of those eight districts are
represented by black Democrats. (Ex. NPX 350, 60–62). The Acts preserve and
indeed increase the number of these majority-black districts.
Third, the majority-black districts are roughly proportional to the black votingage population. Blacks constitute 24.86 percent of the voting-age population in
Alabama. Under the Acts, 22.86 percent of the districts in the Senate will be majorityblack districts and 26.67 percent of the districts in the House will be majority-black
districts. See De Grandy, 512 U.S. at 1020, 114 S. Ct. at 2661 (“[P]roportionality . . . is
obviously an indication that minority voters have an equal opportunity, in spite of
racial polarization ‘to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of
their choice.’” (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1973(b))).
Fourth, the record contains no evidence of racial appeals in recent political
campaigns in Alabama or of a significant lack of responsiveness to the needs of
blacks. The plaintiffs introduced some testimony about a partisan campaign trick
during the last election in which a conservative radio host announced that, because of
staffing problems, Democrats should vote a day later than Republicans, but the record
establishes that the Secretary of State immediately countered that misinformation.
There is no evidence that any state official was involved in the trick. And the
evidence establishes that the announcement was directed at Democratic voters
generally, not minority voters. The plaintiffs also introduced evidence that Jefferson
116

County recently closed Cooper Green, a hospital that served the indigent population
in the County, many of whom are black, but the record establishes that Cooper Green
had recently undergone extensive renovations before the fiscal crisis in the County led
to its closure. And the plaintiffs introduced evidence that the Legislature has not been
sensitive to the needs of the Hispanic population in Alabama, but that evidence is not
relevant to the question whether the Legislature has been responsive to the needs of
black voters.
Because the overwhelming evidence in the record suggests that black voters
have an equal opportunity to participate in the political process the same as everyone
else, we conclude that the totality of the circumstances would not support a claim of
vote dilution even if the plaintiffs could establish the Gingles requirements.
B. Intentional Discrimination
The plaintiffs next argue that the State defendants engaged in intentional
discrimination on the basis of race when they drafted and adopted the new districts in
violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the
Fifteenth Amendment. The filings and arguments made by the plaintiffs on these
claims were mystifying at best. The Black Caucus plaintiffs routinely cited decisions
of the Supreme Court on claims of racial gerrymandering, but never identified which
districts they alleged were racially gerrymandered and introduced little evidence to
prove a discriminatory intent. The Democratic Conference plaintiffs referred to their
claims as claims of racial gerrymandering, but alternated between discussions of
117

specific districts and the Acts as a whole and offered little guidance about how we
should evaluate the Acts under strict scrutiny. We were presented with one set of
plaintiffs who argued about discriminatory purpose and another set of plaintiffs who
argued about strict scrutiny, but no set of plaintiffs who argued both.
We construe the filings as making three different claims based on intentional
discrimination. First, we construe the filings of the Black Caucus plaintiffs and the
Democratic Conference plaintiffs to argue that the Acts were promulgated for an
invidious discriminatory purpose and have the effect of diluting minority voting
strength. See Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev’t Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 264–65,
97 S. Ct. 555, 563 (1977). Second, we construe the filings of the Black Caucus
plaintiffs and the Democratic Conference plaintiffs as arguing that the Acts as a whole
constitute racial gerrymanders. See Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 642, 113 S. Ct. 2816,
2024 (1993). Third, we construe the filings of the Democratic Conference plaintiffs
as also arguing that Senate Districts 7, 11, 22, and 26 constitute racial gerrymanders.
See id. The Democratic Conference plaintiffs lack standing to maintain the claims of
racial gerrymandering, and all the claims of intentional discrimination, in any event,
fail on the merits.
1. The Plaintiffs Failed To Prove that the Acts Were Motivated by an Invidious
Discriminatory Purpose.
The plaintiffs argue that the Acts not only result in the dilution of black voting
strength in violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but were motivated by an
118

invidious discriminatory purpose, in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Amendments. Although the Supreme Court earlier interpreted section 2 of the
Voting Rights Act to require proof of a discriminatory purpose, Congress later
amended the statute to allow proof of only discriminatory results. See Gingles, 478 U.S.
at 43, 106 S. Ct. at 2762. Congress created the results test by deleting the phrase “to
deny or abridge” and replacing it with the following language: “in a manner which
results in a denial or abridgement of.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973(a) (amended 1982). In its
amendments, Congress “dispositively reject[ed] the position of the plurality in Mobile
v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55, [100 S. Ct. 1490] (1980), which required proof that the
contested electoral practice or mechanism was adopted or maintained with the intent
to discriminate against minority voters.” See Gingles, 478 U.S. at 43-44, 106 S. Ct. at
2762-63. But insofar as section 2 still forbids purposeful discrimination, it should be
interpreted consistently with the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, which
require the plaintiffs to prove both that the redistricting plan was created with an
invidious discriminatory purpose and that it results in the dilution of a minority’s
voting strength. See Bolden, 446 U.S. at 62–63, 100 S. Ct. at 1497; see also Rogers v. Lodge,
458 U.S. 613, 617, 102 S. Ct. 3272, 3276 (1982); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755, 765, 93
S. Ct. 2332, 2339 (1973).
“Determining whether invidious discriminatory purpose was a motivating
factor demands a sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence of
intent as may be available.” Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266, 97 S. Ct. at 564.
119

“Sometimes a clear pattern, unexplainable on grounds other than race, emerges from
the effect of the state action even when the governing legislation appears neutral on
its face. . . . But such cases are rare.” Id. When no such pattern emerges, we consider
evidence such as “[t]he impact of the official action,” “[t]he historical background of
the decision,” “[t]he specific sequence of events leading up to the challenged
decision,” “[d]epartures from the normal procedural sequence,” and “[t]he legislative
or administrative history.” See id. at 266–68, 97 S. Ct. at 564–65.
Based on the application of the Arlington Heights factors, we conclude that an
invidious discriminatory purpose was not a motivating factor in the creation of the
Acts. First, the impact of the Acts weighs against a finding of invidious
discriminatory purpose because the Acts draw as many majority-black districts as
possible within an overall deviation in population of 2 percent and leave many of the
majority-black districts underpopulated. Second, the historical background of the
decision weighs against a finding of invidious discriminatory purpose because the
Legislature used appropriate guidelines to fulfill its constitutional duty to redistrict
itself without judicial intervention, contrary to the discriminatory failures to redistrict
that mar the State’s past. Third, the sequence of events leading up to the enactment
of the Acts weighs against a finding of an invidious discriminatory purpose because
Senator Dial and Representative McClendon solicited and incorporated comments
from the public and from their colleagues in the Legislature. The Acts adopted large
portions of maps provided to Senator Dial and Representative McClendon by black
120

legislators. And the Committee developed the Acts in compliance with neutral
districting principles including the preservation of the core of existing districts, the
requirement of one person, one vote, and respect for communities of interest.
Fourth, the Legislature did not depart from normal procedures to pass the Acts, but
followed roughly the same procedures as had the Legislature in 2001 when it enacted
the last districts. Indeed, the Legislature improved upon those procedures: the
Committee held even more public hearings than had the Committee in 2001; the
Committee solicited public comment before the plans were drafted so as to enable the
public to have greater influence on the product; and the Legislature passed the Acts in
a special session that complied with all normal legislative procedures. Fifth, the
record contains no contemporaneous statements made about the redistricting plan
that suggest an invidious discriminatory purpose in the creation of the Acts;
statements by Republicans that they desired to gain seats with the new districts speak
to partisan, not racial, motives.
The Democratic Conference plaintiffs argue that the passage of the Acts in a
special session suggests discriminatory intent, but we disagree. The Democratic
Conference plaintiffs identify several alleged procedural defects including the failure
of the Legislature to redistrict itself in the first regular session after the census as
required by the state constitution, the short notice for the final public hearing on the
proposed districts, and the efforts of the Republicans to draft the districts behind
closed doors. But these facts do not evidence discriminatory intent. The Legislature
121

has never redistricted itself in the first regular session, and the Legislature followed the
precedent established in 2001 of drawing the districts in a special session. Senator
Dial explained that the Committee conducted the first 21 public hearings before the
initial plans were completed to give the public a greater opportunity to comment, in
contrast with the public hearings held in 2001 when the plans were presented as a fait
accompli. And the final hearing was held on short notice because of the short time
left to pass the Acts in the special session.
The Democratic Conference plaintiffs also argue that the drawing of the
district lines by Hinaman behind closed doors suggests an invidious racial purpose,
but we disagree. As the plaintiffs’ own expert conceded, the party in power ordinarily
drafts redistricting plans behind closed doors. If anything, the record suggests that
the Republicans were more open to discussion with the Democratic members of the
Legislature than would be expected, particularly in the light of the Republican
supermajority in each house. Senator Dial and Representative McClendon offered to
meet with all of their colleagues, and the record is clear that they met with both
Republicans and Democrats and that they incorporated suggestions from Democratic
legislators into the plans. Even Hinaman, who contracted to assist the Republicans
with the districts, worked on some boundary changes with Democratic representatives
in the final week before the passage of the Acts. No invidious racial purpose has been
proved about this process.

122

The Black Caucus plaintiffs and the Democratic Conference plaintiffs also
argued that the Acts were the product of a grand Republican strategy to make the
Democratic Party the “black party” and the Republican Party the “white party,” but
the record does not support that theory. Senator Dial and Representative McClendon
credibly testified that they had never heard of such a strategy, had no personal interest
in any such strategy, and did not even discuss the reapportionment process with the
Republican National Committee. And the documentary evidence establishes that the
Committee adopted the guidelines for reapportionment before Hinaman arrived to
help the Republican leadership draft the new lines and that the only paperwork that
Senator Dial and Representative McClendon received from the national party
involved election returns and district statistics. The record contains no evidence that
the Alabama Republican Party is engaged in any grand strategy to eliminate white
Democrats.
2. We Reject the Plaintiffs’ Claims of Racial Gerrymandering.
A claim of racial gerrymandering is “analytically distinct from a vote dilution
claim.” Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 911, 115 S. Ct. 2475, 2485 (1995). “Whereas a
vote dilution claim alleges that the State has enacted a particular voting scheme as a
purposeful device to minimize or cancel out the voting potential of racial or ethnic
minorities, an action disadvantaging voters of a particular race, the essence of the
equal protection claim [for racial gerrymandering] is that the State has used race as a
basis for separating voters into districts.” Id. The Supreme Court first recognized this
123

equal protection claim in Shaw, in which the Court explained that the segregation of
races of citizens into different voting districts violates not only the Fifteenth
Amendment, as it had previously determined in Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339,
342–48, 81 S. Ct. 125, 127–30 (1960), but also the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. See Shaw, 509 U.S. at 645, 113 S. Ct. at 2826.
a. The Black Caucus Plaintiffs Have Standing To Maintain Claims of Racial
Gerrymandering Against the Acts as a Whole, but the Democratic Conference
Plaintiffs Do Not.
We must decide whether the plaintiffs in each action have standing to challenge
the Acts as racial gerrymanders, and “the irreducible constitutional minimum of
standing contains three elements.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61,
112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992). “First, the plaintiff must have suffered an ‘injury in
fact’—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized,
and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Second, there must be a
causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of. Third, it must
be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a
favorable decision.” United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 742–43, 115 S. Ct. 2431, 2435
(1995).
The Supreme Court has explained that “[d]emonstrating the individualized
harm our standing doctrine requires may not be easy in the racial gerrymandering
context, as it will frequently be difficult to discern why a particular citizen was put in
one district or another.” Id. at 744, 115 S. Ct. at 2436. “Only those citizens able to
124

allege injury as a direct result of having personally been denied equal treatment may
bring a challenge [of racial gerrymandering to a redistricting Act as a whole], and
citizens who do so carry the burden of proving their standing, as well as their case on
the merits.” Id. at 746, 115 S. Ct. at 2437. A citizen who files a claim of racial
gerrymandering about a particular district will meet the requirement of personal injury
when that plaintiff resides in the district that he alleges was the product of a racial
gerrymander. Id. at 744–45, 115 S. Ct. at 2436. But “where a plaintiff does not live in
such a district, he or she does not suffer those special harms, and any inference that
the plaintiff has personally been subjected to a racial classification would not be
justified absent specific evidence tending to support that inference.” Id. at 745, 115 S.
Ct. at 2436.
The Alabama Legislative Black Caucus has organizational standing to maintain
its claim of racial gerrymandering because its members reside in nearly every
challenged district. Ordinarily, “[a]n association has standing to bring suit on behalf
of its members when its members would have standing to sue in their own right, the
interests at stake are germane to the organization’s purpose, and neither the claim
asserted nor the relief requested requires individual members’ participation in the
lawsuit.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 169, 120 S.
Ct. 693, 697 (2000). The parties stipulated that the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus
is “composed of every African-American member of the House and Senate.” (Doc.
182, 10). The State defendants submitted a list of each house representative that
125

includes the legislator’s party and race. (Ex. SDX 459, 1470–72). According to that
list, 26 black Democrats are currently incumbents in House districts drawn under the
2001 plan. All black incumbents remain residents of their current House districts
under the new House plan because the Legislature was mostly successful in avoiding
incumbent conflicts when drawing the new districts. There was an incumbent conflict
in House District 60 until the recent death of Representative Newton. All 26
incumbents are members of the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus and, as individual
voters, would have standing to maintain a claim of racial gerrymandering because they
are, by necessity, residents of the districts they represent. There is not a
corresponding list of each senator that includes the legislator’s party and race, but
Senator Smitherman, Senator Ross, and Senator Figures are black incumbents who
testified at trial about how the new senate plan affected their senate districts. Because
the Legislature avoided all incumbent conflicts in the new Senate districts, these
senators are residents of the new districts and would have standing as voters to
maintain a claim of racial gerrymandering. Like the 26 representatives, all black
senators are also members of the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus. The black
legislators represent the majority-black House and Senate districts that are the subject
of the racial gerrymandering claim. A claim of racial gerrymandering is germane to
the purpose of the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus, an unincorporated political
organization of African Americans elected to the Alabama Legislature, and the
Alabama Legislative Black Caucus represents voters whose rights to equal protection
126

of law would be violated by redistricting plans that constitute a racial gerrymander.
And their claim for injunctive relief does not require the participation of individual
plaintiffs. Because we hold that the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus has
organizational standing, we need not decide whether the Alabama Association of
Black County Officials or any of its members have standing.
The Democratic Conference plaintiffs, on the other hand, have not met their
burden to establish standing to bring a claim of racial gerrymandering to the Acts as a
whole. The record does not clearly identify the districts in which the individual
members of the Alabama Democratic Conference reside under the Acts. Without
that testimony, we cannot determine whether the plaintiffs were personally subjected
to any racial classification when they were assigned to their districts. And the
Alabama Democratic Conference similarly offered no specific evidence that any of its
members were subjected to a racial classification.
b. We Dismiss the District-Specific Claims of Racial Gerrymandering Filed by the
Democratic Conference Plaintiffs for Lack of Standing.
We construe the filings of the Democratic Conference plaintiffs also to present
district-specific racial gerrymandering challenges to Senate Districts 7, 11, 22, and 26
under Act 603. But the Democratic Conference plaintiffs have not proved that they
have standing to bring any of these claims. The Alabama Democratic Conference
presented insufficient evidence that it has members who reside in these districts. And
the individual Democratic Conference plaintiffs presented insufficient evidence that
127

they reside in these districts or were otherwise personally subjected to a racial
classification during the districting process.
The Alabama Democratic Conference has not proved that it has members who
would have standing to pursue any district-specific claims of racial gerrymandering.
At trial, Reed testified on behalf of the Conference that it has members in almost
every county in Alabama, but the counties in Alabama are split into many districts.
The Conference offered no testimony or evidence that it has members in all of the
districts in Alabama or in any of the specific districts that it challenged in this matter.
Because we cannot conclude, based on the evidence in the record, that the Alabama
Democratic Conference has members who would have standing to bring the districtspecific claims of racial gerrymandering in their own right, we must dismiss those
claims for lack of standing.
And the individual Democratic Conference plaintiffs have failed to prove that
they have standing to bring any district-specific claims of racial gerrymandering.
None of the individual plaintiffs testified that he or she will reside in any of those
districts under the Acts. The parties agree that Toussaint is a registered voter in
Madison County, and the record suggests that she voted in the former Senate District
7. (Doc. 176, 15). But the record contains no evidence of her Senate district under
the new map. The parties agree that Weaver is a registered voter in Washington
County who votes in the former Senate District 22, (Doc. 176, 15), but the record is
silent about his assignment to a district under the Acts, (Trial Tr. vol. 4, 44–45, Aug.
128

13, 2013). And the parties agree that Pettway is a registered voter in Montgomery
County in the former House District 73, (Doc. 176, 15), but the record contains no
evidence about either the Senate district where he currently votes or the Senate district
where he would vote under the new Acts. None of the individual Democratic
Conference plaintiffs reside in Senate District 11.
c. Even if All the Plaintiffs Had Standing To Assert Their Claims of Racial
Gerrymandering, Those Claims Would Fail Because Race Was Not the Predominant
Motivating Factor in the Creation of the Districts.
Even if all the plaintiffs could establish that they have standing to bring their
claims of racial gerrymandering, the claims would fail. Race was not the predominant
motivating factor for the Acts as a whole. And race was not the predominant
motivating factor for drawing Senate Districts 7, 11, 22, or 26.
“Electoral district lines are facially race neutral, so a more searching inquiry is
necessary before strict scrutiny can be found applicable in redistricting cases than in
cases of classification based explicitly on race.” Vera, 517 U.S. at 958, 116 S. Ct. at
1951 (internal quotation marks omitted). On its face, “[a] reapportionment statute
typically does not classify persons at all; it classifies tracts of land, or addresses.”
Shaw, 509 U.S. at 646, 113 S. Ct. at 2826. And “[s]trict scrutiny does not apply merely
because redistricting is performed with consciousness of race. Nor does it apply to all
cases of intentional creation of majority-minority districts.” Vera, 517 U.S. at 958, 116
S. Ct. at 1951. But strict scrutiny will apply when a state has subordinated traditional,
legitimate districting principles to race, so that race was the predominant factor
129

motivating the decision of the Legislature. See id. And when strict scrutiny is invoked,
the State must establish that its districting legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve a
compelling interest. Id.
“Federal-court review of districting legislation represents a serious intrusion on
the most vital of local functions.” Miller, 515 U.S. at 915, 115 S. Ct. at 2489. “The
courts, in assessing the sufficiency of a challenge to a districting plan, must be
sensitive to the complex interplay of forces that enter a legislature’s redistricting
calculus.” Id. at 915–16. Only when race is the “predominant factor motivating the
legislature’s redistricting decision” will strict scrutiny apply. Vera, 517 U.S. at 959, 116
S. Ct. at 1952. “The distinction between being aware of racial considerations and
being motivated by them may be difficult to make. This evidentiary difficulty,
together with the sensitive nature of redistricting and the presumption of good faith
that must be accorded legislative enactments, requires courts to exercise extraordinary
caution in adjudicating claims that a State has drawn district lines on the basis of
race.” Miller, 515 U.S. at 916, 115 S. Ct. at 2489.
i. The Acts
When the Legislature undertook the task of drawing the new House and Senate
districts after the 2010 Census, the main priority of the Legislature was to comply with
the constitutional mandate of one person, one vote. To accomplish this task, the
Reapportionment Committee selected a guideline of an overall deviation in
population of plus or minus 1 percent, and the Legislature applied this guideline of an
130

overall deviation of 2 percent to every district before satisfying any other redistricting
principles. The guidelines adopted by the Reapportionment Committee and the
consistent testimony of Senator Dial, Representative McClendon, and Hinaman
establish that the Legislature also considered race when required by federal law: the
Legislature sought to comply with sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act by
preserving—and, in the House, increasing—the majority-black districts and by not
substantially reducing the percentage of black persons in those districts. But the
guidelines and the consistent testimony of Senator Dial, Representative McClendon,
and Hinaman proved that the State followed the guideline of an overall deviation of 2
percent, without exception, and then applied the following neutral redistricting
principles when feasible: to preserve the core of existing districts; to avoid incumbent
conflicts; to draw compact and contiguous districts; and to appease incumbents by
accommodating their preferences whenever possible. Finally, the Legislature
considered partisan data to preserve the Republican supermajority in the Legislature.
“The record does not reflect a history of purely race-based districting revisions.” Vera,
517 U.S. at 959, 116 S. Ct. at 1952 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Although race was a factor in the creation of the districts, we find that the
Legislature did not subordinate traditional, race-neutral districting principles to racebased considerations. The Legislature did not create majority-black districts for the
first time nor aim to increase or decrease the percentage of the black populations
within the majority-black districts, most of which remained in the same geographic
131

areas. The 2010 Census revealed relatively modest growth of the black population in
Alabama from 2000 to 2010. (Ex. NPX 325; Ex. NPX 326). But the concentrations
of the black population had declined in some areas and shifted in other areas, leaving
all majority-black districts significantly underpopulated. And the Legislature moved
districts to correspond with population growth and to comply with the overall
deviation in population of 2 percent. The Legislature moved House District 53, a
majority-black district, from Jefferson County, where there were several severely
underpopulated majority-black districts, to Madison County, where the black
population had increased and where a new, compact majority-black district could be
drawn instead. The Legislature moved House District 73, which had never been a
majority-black district, from Montgomery County, another area with underpopulated
majority-black districts, to Shelby County, an area with severely overpopulated
majority-white districts. Above all, the Legislature followed a lower overall deviation
in population to create more equality among districts throughout the State.
As it corrected the malapportionment of the districts, the Legislature avoided
reducing significantly the proportion of black persons in each majority-black district,
but it followed no bright-line rule. The Legislature reduced the percentage of black
persons in majority-black districts where necessary to achieve other objectives. The
Legislature maintained the cores of existing districts, made districts more compact
where possible, kept almost all of the incumbents within their districts, and respected
communities of interest where possible. The new districts are not so “bizarre on
132

[their] face that [they are] unexplainable on grounds other than race,” Shaw, 509 U.S.
at 644, 113 S. Ct. at 644 (internal citations omitted), nor were they approved after the
Department of Justice had rejected two previous redistricting plans under a “maxblack” plan, Miller, 515 U.S. at 907, 115 S. Ct. at 2484, nor is there “overwhelming
evidence that the shape[s] [of the districts were] essentially dictated by racial
considerations of one form or another,” Vera, 517 U.S. at 973, 116 S. Ct. at 1958. We
find that the Legislature was not predominantly motivated by racial considerations
when it adopted the new districts.
When the Legislature adopted a guideline for less deviation in population
equality, it reduced, from the outset, its ability to pack voters for any discriminatory
purpose, whether partisan or racial. After the 2000 Census, the Legislature adopted
an overall deviation of 10 percent and systematically underpopulated majority-black
districts at the expense of majority-white districts that the Legislature, in turn,
overpopulated. When the Legislature, after the 2010 Census, adopted a guideline that
required a smaller deviation in population equality, it reduced the potential for this
kind of discrimination, whether in favor of or against a racial minority. Had the
Legislature intended to pack black voters in majority-black districts, after the 2010
Census, the Legislature could have adopted, as before, a guideline that allowed more
population inequality and then overpopulated the majority-black districts. But the
Legislature did the opposite: it adopted a guideline for greater population equality and
slightly underpopulated the vast majority of the majority-black districts. And the
133

guideline for greater population equality limited the ability of the drawer of the district
lines, Hinaman, to place more voters of any kind into a particular district.
With a tighter guideline for population equality, geography also limited the
potential for discrimination. Voters are not fungible commodities that can be moved
anywhere in a state. Hinaman took population concentrations, including racial groups
tied to particular geographical locations, as fixed numbers for purposes of drawing the
new districts. Hinaman used existing House and Senate districts to draw the new
district lines, and his choice of which voters to add or subtract from each district was
limited by which populations abutted the existing districts. Hinaman also could not
abandon the previous district lines without invariably creating more incumbent
conflicts and disrupting communities of interest.
Above all, the guideline for greater population equality eliminated the partisan
gerrymander that existed in the former districts. Indeed, this fact explains why both
the Black Caucus plaintiffs and the Democratic Conference plaintiffs have challenged
the use of an overall deviation in population of 2 percent throughout this litigation
and have refused to offer into evidence an alternative statewide plan for redistricting
that conforms to this guideline. Although the plaintiffs have argued that this
guideline contributed to a racial discriminatory purpose in the design of the new
districts, the plaintiffs have advanced that losing argument precisely because they have
recognized all along that this guideline eliminates the partisan advantage that the
plaintiffs created and enjoyed in the former districting plan.
134

Our dissenting colleague contends that the Legislature created a “racial quota”
for the majority-black districts. He laces his dissenting opinion with myriad uses of
the loaded term “quota,” but the record, taken as a whole, establishes that the
Legislature employed no quota.
Hinaman balanced and satisfied five lawful objectives with respect to the
majority-black districts. First, to comply with the guarantee of one person, one vote
and avoid litigation of the kind that occurred in Larios, Hinaman repopulated the
majority-black districts, all of which were underpopulated, and brought them within
the guideline for population equality. Second, to comply with sections 2 and 5 of the
Voting Rights Act, Hinaman maintained the same number of majority-black districts.
A decade earlier, the plaintiffs who served as Democratic leaders in the Legislature did
the same thing when they drew new district lines, and the plaintiffs do not contend
that Hinaman should have done otherwise in 2012. Third, to comply with section 5,
Hinaman avoided a significant reduction in the percentages of black voters in the
majority-black districts that he preserved. Again, a decade earlier, several of the
plaintiffs did the same thing, but now they contend that Hinaman was wrong to do
so. Fourth, to assist the passage of the redistricting plan in the Legislature, Hinaman
avoided, as much as possible, the placement of more than one incumbent legislator in
each district. And fifth, to preserve communities of interest, Hinaman preserved, as
much as possible, the core of each existing district. As he had done before for both

135

the federal judiciary and the Legislature in earlier cycles of redistricting, Hinaman ably
balanced all these objectives and avoided the pitfalls of racial gerrymandering.
Our dissenting colleague relies on testimony by Senator Dial, Representative
McClendon, and Hinaman as proof that race predominated over other considerations
in drawing the majority-black districts, but the record establishes that the drafters of
the new districts, above all, had to correct the severe malapportionment that
inevitably followed the partisan gerrymander of the previous districts. Senator Dial,
for example, testified about redistricting in Jefferson County and explained that the
majority-black districts were expanded because they were underpopulated. (Trial Tr.
vol. 1, 112–13, Aug. 8, 2013). Senator Dial testified that “[e]very minority district in
this state had lost population and had to grow.” (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 35, Aug. 8, 2013).
He described the need for majority-black districts to comply with the guideline of an
overall deviation of 2 percent as the need “to grow,” and he repeated that phrase
several times during his testimony. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 36, Aug. 8, 2013) (“[Senator
Sanders] realized his district had to grow . . . he gave me some instructions on how he
thought his district should grow.”); id. at 37; id. at 41 (“[Senator Figures’s] district had
to grow also.”); id. at 44; id. at 47 (“Senator Bobby Singleton’s district . . . also had to
grow.”); id. at 48; id. at 55 (“I did not consider any [black percentage] too high, based
on what – the plus or minus variance and the fact that the districts had to grow
proportionately.”); id. at 69; id. at 109 (“I kn[e]w that the Jefferson County having to
grow would affect the other areas.”); id. at 110 (“I had the numbers of Senator
136

Smitherman’s district and how many he had to grow. I knew how many Senator
Dunn had to grow and I knew how many that Senator Coleman had to grow.”); id. at
133; id. at 141 (“[Senator Beasley’s] district is basically a minority district and had to
grow.”). Senator Dial further explained, “My goal was, based on what had happened
in prior reapportionments, to not retrogress the minority districts in this state. All of
them had to grow by population. And if they grew in population, they had to grow in
the same percentage that they already have and not retrogress that district.” (Trial Tr.
vol. 1, 79, Aug. 8, 2013). And it makes sense that the “first qualification” after
meeting the guideline of an overall deviation of 2 percent was not to retrogress
minority districts when repopulating them. Representative McClendon’s testimony
reflects the same understanding that Senator Dial expressed. Immediately before
acknowledging that approval by the Department of Justice was a priority,
Representative McClendon explained that the overall deviation of 2 percent “just
makes good sense to me.” (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 220, Aug. 12, 2013). Although Hinaman
testified that he “was concerned [that percentages of the black population significantly
lower than the 2001 plans would be considered] retrogression that would be looked
upon unfavorably by the Justice Department under Section 5,” he also testified that
“all [the majority-black districts were] underpopulated [in] comparison to ideal [when
he began work on them], and [he] had to find population to repopulate them.” (Trial
Tr. vol. 3, 145, 122, Aug. 12, 2013). Hinaman explained, “When I was adding
population to majority black districts, my goal was not to retrogress the number that
137

they had in 2001, meaning 2010 Census, as applied to the 2001 lines.” (Trial Tr. vol.
3, 142, Aug. 12, 2013). Hinaman’s concern about retrogression arose only in
conjunction with the need to remedy the malapportionment of the majority-black
districts and satisfy the guideline of an overall deviation in population of 2 percent.
The trial testimony of Senator Dial, Representative McClendon, and Hinaman,
taken on whole, establishes that the primary reason they added population to
majority-black districts was because those districts were severely underpopulated.
What population was added to a particular district was then informed by other
considerations, including avoiding retrogression and dilution of minority votes. The
Committee established the 2 percent guideline as the nonnegotiable baseline for
redistricting, and Hinaman satisfied that guideline in every district. And the
percentage of black population in many majority-black districts decreased, which
supports the inference that Hinaman subordinated racial considerations to the
guideline of an overall deviation in population of 2 percent.
Our dissenting colleague faults the Legislature for adding over 120,000 black
people to the majority-black House districts, which he states represents “19.7 % of
the black people in the State of Alabama who did not already live in a majority-black
House District,” but these skewed statistics do not tell the whole story. After the
2010 Census, every majority-black House District was underpopulated, and many
were grossly underpopulated. That problem came about as a result of the partisan
gerrymander designed by the Democrat-controlled Legislature a decade earlier. The
138

Legislature had to add large populations to these gerrymandered districts to comply
with the constitutional guarantee of one person, one vote. To avoid a potential
violation of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Hinaman also added enough
contiguous black populations to maintain the same relative percentages of black
populations in the majority-black districts. Of course, the Legislature 10 years earlier,
led by many of the plaintiffs in this litigation, had done the same thing. To
accomplish these tasks in this redistricting cycle, Hinaman moved only 9.8 percent of
the total black population in the State of Alabama into the majority-black House
districts, which means that more than 90 percent of the total black population
remained in the same kind of district where they had resided earlier. And had the
Legislature in 2001 complied with an overall deviation of 2 percent like Hinaman did,
it would have needed to move 6.6 percent of the total black population in the State of
Alabama into the same majority-black House districts instead of only the 5.4 percent
it moved to comply with its more lenient overall population deviation of 10 percent.
We agree with our dissenting colleague that all districting principles were
subordinated to a single consideration, but our dissenting colleague identifies the
wrong one. Our dissenting colleague asserts that race predominated over every other
districting principle, but the consistent testimony of Senator Dial, Representative
McClendon, and Hinaman established that the constitutional requirement of one
person, one vote trumped every other districting principle. Each district in both
houses satisfies the guideline of an overall deviation in population of 2 percent. To
139

comply with that guideline, Hinaman had to repopulate severely underpopulated
majority-black districts and depopulate severely overpopulated majority-white
districts. While accomplishing this primary task, Hinaman also tried to satisfy sections
2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Our dissenting colleague discounts Hinaman’s
paramount commitment to population equality and instead faults a few majority-black
districts and several precinct splits as examples that the drafters employed a “rigid
quota.”
Our dissenting colleague, for example, contends that the Legislature
gerrymandered Senate District 26 by sifting black voters, but the record proves
otherwise. Under the 2001 plan, Senate District 26 covered an expansive area,
including the majority of Montgomery County. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 122, Aug. 12, 2013;
Ex. SDX 477). In 2010, District 26 was underpopulated by 11.64 percent and was
72.75 percent black in total population. (Ex. NPX 340; Ex. APX 7). To comply with
the 2 percent guideline, Hinaman added portions of Senate District 25 that were
located in the City of Montgomery to repopulate District 26 and to maintain roughly
the same black percentage of the total population. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 129–130, Aug. 12,
2013). Hinaman also reassigned to Senate District 25 the largely white rural
population in the southeast corner of Montgomery County. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 128–
129, Aug. 12, 2013). This decision increased the total black population in Senate
District 26 to 75.22 percent, which is an unremarkable 2.44 percent difference. (Ex.
APX 7). Our dissenting colleague points to this slight increase as proof that black
140

voters were gerrymandered into District 26 because it is over 70 percent black. But
Senate District 26 has historically been over 70 percent black: in 1993, District 26 was
70.34 percent black in total population, (Ex. NPX 310, 12); in 2001, District 26 was
71.51 percent black in total population, (Ex. NPX 310, 12); and in 2010, District 26
was 72.75 percent black in total population and 70.87 percent black in voting-age
population, (Ex. APX 7). This slow, slight percentage increase of the black
population in District 26 does not evidence gerrymandering of black voters; instead, it
evidences consistent concentrations of black population in the City of Montgomery.
Our dissenting colleague also declares that “the resulting district is not compact,” but
the exhibit he cites as evidence supports the opposite finding. District 26 is far more
compact under the new plan than under the 2001 plan. The district is concentrated in
the urban northeast corner of Montgomery County where the City of Montgomery
lies instead of stretching across the entire county to envelop sparsely populated rural
precincts. (Ex. SDX 476). Communities of interest in that district have been
strengthened, the percentage of the black total population has remained relatively
constant, and District 26 is now underpopulated by only .08 percent. (Ex. SDX 400).
Our dissenting colleague also contends that Hinaman “hunted” for additional
black populations throughout Alabama, but the record again shows otherwise. For
example, the percentage of the black total population of House District 19 decreased
substantially under the new plan. In 2001, District 19 was 66.039 percent black in
total population. (Ex. SDX 403; Ex. NPX 310). In 2010, it had increased to 70.04
141

percent black in total population and was underpopulated by 6.9 percent. (Ex. APX
6; Ex. SDX 406). Under the new plan, District 19 is now 61.5 percent black in total
population, and it remains underpopulated by .97 percent. (Ex. APX 6; Ex. SDX
403). The record provides many other examples: Hinaman reduced the percentage of
black total population from 65.848 to 60.1 in House District 52; from 64.445 to 56.2
in House District 53; from 63.276 to 56.9 in House District 54; from 69.677 to 67
percent in House District 77; from 72.697 to 70.2 in House District 78; from 61.214
to 57.7 in House District 83; from 64.738 to 60.8 in House District 97; from 64.448 to
60 in House District 98; from 66.685 to 59.12 in Senate District 18; from 66.227 to
65.39 in Senate District 19; and from 65.697 to 63.38 in Senate District 20.
Our dissenting colleague cites no credible evidence for his assertion that
“Hinaman split … precincts largely along racial lines statewide.” He cites the
Democratic Conference plaintiffs’ exhibit 357, which is a map of Alabama divided by
counties with yellow highlighted areas that represent precinct splits under the Acts.
(Ex. NPX 357). Majority-black districts do not overlay this map to show the reader
which districts experienced precinct splitting nor does our dissenting colleague point
to any testimony at trial that majority-black districts incurred more precinct splits.
Indeed, exhibit 357 shows high concentrations of precinct splitting in 26 counties
composed exclusively of majority-white House and Senate districts, including Blount,
Calhoun, Chambers, Chilton, Clay, Cleburne, Coffee, Colbert, Coosa, Cullman, Dale,
Dekalb, Escambia, Etowah, Franklin, Houston, Jackson, Lauderdale, Limestone,
142

Marion, Marshall, Morgan, Shelby, St. Clair, Walker, and Winston Counties. (Ex.
NPX 357). Admittedly, precinct splitting occurred in 24 counties that include majorityblack districts, such as Autauga, Baldwin, Bibb, Choctaw, Clarke, Conecuh, Elmore,
Greene, Hale, Jefferson, Lee, Madison, Marengo, Mobile, Monroe, Montgomery,
Perry, Pickens, Russell, Sumter, Talladega, Tallapoosa, Tuscaloosa, and Washington
Counties. (Ex. NPX 357). But the precinct splits that occurred in some of these
counties, like Baldwin, were predominately in the majority-white districts. The map
also shows that the Legislature split zero precincts in the majority-black counties of
Dallas (69.4 percent), Wilcox (72.5 percent), Lowndes (73.5 percent), Bullock (70.2
percent), and Macon (82.6 percent). U.S. Census Bureau, Census Data Mapper, (Oct.
18, 2013, 9:12 AM), http://tigerweb.geo.census.gov/datamapper/map.html. It is
impossible to determine accurately where the majority of precinct splits occurred
based on exhibit 357, and the exhibit does not support the inference that race
motivated Hinaman’s decision to split any particular precinct. The map, at best, tells
the reader that precinct splits occurred throughout the State.
Our dissenting colleague does not cite other documentary evidence for support
of his assertion that majority-black districts suffered the brunt of the precinct splits,
even though the parties jointly submitted two charts that detail each House and
Senate precinct split. The charts show the reader nothing about an improper intent of
the Legislature. (Ex. CE 40, CE 41). These charts are over 325 pages long; surely, if
the Legislature acted with a racially discriminatory purpose when splitting precincts,
143

the charts would reveal it. (Ex. CE 40, CE 41). But the charts emphasize one point:
precinct splits occurred with no discernible pattern. The House and Senate have a
total of 3,487 precincts, (Ex. CE 40; Ex. CE 41), and the Legislature split 1,287 of
those precincts, (Ex. CE 40; EX. CE 41). Precinct populations range from 0 people
in several precincts to 44,728 in the Auburn Precinct in House District 79. (Ex. CE
41, 167). House districts contain as few as three precincts and as many as 81
precincts, and Senate districts contain as few as 10 precincts and as many as 108
precincts. (Ex. CE 40, 41). In the House, the Legislature split 44.2 percent of all
precincts, 39 percent of majority-white precincts, and 57 percent of majority-black
precincts. (Ex. CE 41). In the Senate, the Legislature split 25.4 percent of all
precincts, 26 percent of majority-white precincts, and 23 percent of majority-black
precincts. (Ex. CE 40). And the racial composition of the precincts varies. The
Dodge City Precinct in House District 12 has 1,415 white people and 5 black people;
the McIntyre Precinct in House District 78 has 52 white people and 2,178 black
people; and the Loosier Precinct in Senate District 4 has 590 white people and 2 black
people. (Ex. CE 41, 166, 24; Ex. CE 40, 10). Our dissenting colleague does not point
to specific precinct splits as evidence of a racially discriminatory purpose, and he
cannot do so because the plaintiffs did not introduce evidence of the demographic
data relevant to each split. The vast amount of information located in the two charts
confirms that nothing can be derived about the intent of the Legislature from the
precinct splits.
144

Our dissenting colleague finds persuasive Cooper’s testimony that, “[i]f the
only concerns were maintaining 27 majority black districts and achieving a plus or
minus 1 percent deviation, you wouldn’t need to split anywhere near that many
precincts,” but Cooper failed to support this statement with any specific evidence nor
did he submit to plaintiffs’ counsel a map that complies with the guideline of an
overall deviation of 2 percent and splits fewer precincts. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 105, Aug. 9,
2013). Cooper testified that, although he had drawn a plan that conformed to the
guideline of an overall deviation of 2 percent, he could not recall how many precinct
splits that plan created. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 85–86, Aug. 9, 2013). Cooper admitted that
he “know[s] there were lots of county splits and lots of precinct splits” under the 2001
plan, (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 70, Aug. 9, 2013), and Reed confirmed that “there are going to
be some precincts split. There are going to be some split, however you do it,” (Trial
Tr. vol. 2, 172, Aug. 9, 2013).
Hinaman split many precincts to comply with the guideline of an overall
deviation in population of 2 percent. When asked why he would split a voting
precinct, Hinaman replied, “I guess the categories for splitting a voting precinct would
be for the creation of a black [m]ajority district, for not retrogressing a black
[m]ajority district, for deviation obviously because you had to get to plus or minus 1 percent.
Those would be the normal reasons.” (emphasis added). (Ex. APX 75, 117–118).
This testimony explains why precinct splitting occurred often in counties with only

145

majority-white districts, and it suggests that at least some of the precinct splits in
majority-black districts also were attributable to the 2 percent guideline.
Hinaman honored requests from incumbents too, even when it meant splitting
precincts. For example, Hinaman moved 12 people in Greene County from House
District 71 and relocated them in House District 61 at the request of Representative
Harper who owned a home in Greene County. (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 151, Aug. 12, 2013;
Ex. APX 75, 66-67). To accommodate Harper’s request, Hinaman had to split two
precincts on the border of those two districts, but that split was not motivated by
race. Hinaman also adopted in large part Senator Smitherman’s proposed plans for
Senate Districts 18, 19, and 20 in the Birmingham area. (Ex. APX 68, 3). Hinaman
testified that Senator Smitherman’s “map did not include any demographic
information with it, but . . . I saw that the black population in the proposed new
districts was about the same percentage as in the old districts. That map also split a
number of precincts, which I input into the draft plan as they came to me.” (Ex.
APX 68, 3). Hinaman estimated that he incorporated 90 to 95 percent of Senator
Smitherman’s map into the Senate plan. (Ex. APX 68, 3).
Taken as a whole, Hinaman’s testimony confirms that race was not the
predominant motivating factor in precinct splitting. And, even where it occurred,
precinct splitting was less of an evil to be avoided in redistricting than the
subordination of other redistricting criteria, such as compliance with the Constitution
and the Voting Rights Act. See Larios, 314 F. Supp. 2d at 1360 (stating that traditional
146

districting principles “of compactness, contiguity, minimizing the splits of counties, municipalities,
and precincts, and recognizing communities of interest” were secondary to ensuring compliance
with the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act) (emphasis in original); Guidance
Concerning Redistricting Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 76 Fed. Reg.
7471-01 (explaining that “compliance with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act may
require the jurisdiction to depart from strict adherence to certain redistricting criteria,”
such as precinct splitting, “to avoid retrogression”).
Our dissenting colleague also fails to highlight several notable statistics that
undermine his argument about racial gerrymandering. First, he observes that “[s]even
house districts and three senate districts have an even higher percentage of black
population than before,” but the more informative statistics are that 13 House
districts and 3 Senate districts have lower percentages of black populations than
before. (Ex. SDX 403; Ex. NPX 310). Second, our dissenting colleague asserts that
incumbency protection was subordinated in favor of race-based decisions, but he
ignores the undisputed facts that Hinaman avoided all incumbency conflicts in the
Senate and permitted only two conflicts in the House. Neither of those House
conflicts remains because afterward Representative Newton died and Representative
Hubbard moved his residence. Third, our dissenting colleague cites the number of
majority-black House and Senate districts that are “within one percentage point of the
goal of maintaining the same percentage of black residents,” but he fails to mention
that there are 5 majority-black House districts below 60 percent under the new plan in
147

contrast with only 2 majority-black House districts below 60 percent under the 2001
plan and only 1 majority-black House district below 60 percent under the 1993 plan.
(Ex. SDX 403; Ex. NPX 310).
The Black Caucus plaintiffs argue that the percentages of black populations in
the majority-black districts evidence that race was the predominant factor when the
Legislature drew the new House and Senate plans, even though these percentages
closely resemble the percentages that the Black Caucus endorsed and helped to enact
into law only a decennial census ago. Our dissenting colleague joins their lament and
expresses frustration with the “high percentages” of the black population in the
majority-black districts although he acknowledges that “conditions 30 years ago or 20
years ago or even a decade ago (in or around 2001) may have justified” them. These
arguments beg a question: what has changed in the last few years to support the
conclusion, from the perspective of the Black Caucus plaintiffs, that the new majorityblack districts are unconstitutional when the old majority-black districts were
constitutional? The answer is simple: the Republicans now control the Legislature
instead of the Democrats.
Our dissenting colleague states that “it appears that the only racial dynamic at
play in Alabama’s plans is that the white members of the Alabama legislature, and the
white ones alone, have expressly and specifically targeted black legislators and the
members of their districts for difference in treatment solely because of the race of
those legislators and over those black legislators vocal objections,” but our dissenting
148

colleague ignores the stronger evidence that partisanship explains what happened
here. As in the last round of redistricting, the vote to approve the new districts fell on
party lines, not racial lines. Republicans, with supermajorities in both houses of the
Legislature, voted together in favor of the new districts. White Democrats voted with
black Democrats against the new districts. At trial, three white Democrats testified in
support of the plaintiffs’ complaints: Senator Tammy Irons, Senator Marc Keahey,
and Representative Joe Hubbard. In 2001, when Democrats controlled the
Legislature, they created a partisan gerrymander that substantially underpopulated
majority-black districts and maintained the same relative percentages of black
population in those districts. But in 2012, the same Democratic leaders filed these
actions to complain that it was wrong for the Republicans to demand greater
population equality among districts while maintaining the same relative percentages of
black population in the majority-black districts. The Democratic leaders complain
about maintaining the relative percentages of black population in districts they
designed even after the voters of these districts elected these very Democratic leaders.
The Democratic leaders complain of racial unfairness even though black legislators—
Senator Rodger Smitherman and Representative Thad McClammy—helped draw the
new lines for the majority-black districts. They complain of racial unfairness after
they told Senator Dial and Representative McClendon in public hearings that the
majority-black districts needed to be at least 60 percent black. They complain of racial
unfairness even though they presented testimony at trial from Dr. Joe Reed, the dean
149

of redistricting in Alabama, that the majority-black districts ordinarily should be 60
percent black and sometimes 65 percent black. To suggest that race is the only
dynamic at play here is absurd.
We also reject our dissenting colleague’s comparison of this controversy to the
landmark decision in Gomillion. These consolidated actions challenge district lines that
preserve majority-black districts in the Legislature that several of the plaintiffs helped
create, and the redistricting Acts maintain an unprecedented level of population
equality for those districts. Let us not forget too that the Attorney General of the
United States precleared these new districts. This political landscape offers no parallel
to the nakedly racist decision of the Alabama Legislature in 1957 to alter the
municipal boundaries of Tuskegee “from a square to an uncouth twenty-eight-sided
figure” so as “to remove from the city all save four or five of its 400 Negro voters
while not removing a single white voter or resident.” Gomillion, 364 U.S. at 340–41, 81
S.Ct. at 126–27. Our colleague compares the plight of Senator Figures, the
Democratic leader of the Alabama Senate, with the discrimination against Dr.
Gomillion, but Senator Figures voted for majority-black districts with similar
percentages of black voters a decade ago. And her vote supported a partisan
gerrymander that deliberately discriminated against Republican voters. Now that
Senator Figures has had her political power diminished by the voters of Alabama, in
an election conducted with the districts that favored her party, she seeks to have this
Court enter the partisan fray and change the rules for redistricting for her future
150

political benefit. Her position of diminished, though substantial, political power looks
nothing like the disenfranchised status of Dr. Gomillion.
We refuse to apply a double standard that requires the Legislature to follow one
set of rules for redistricting when Democrats control the Legislature and another set
of rules when Republicans control it. After the 2000 Census, nothing changed that
would have relaxed the constitutional and statutory standards that governed
redistricting. On the contrary, in 2006, Congress amended section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act to make the standard for retrogression “more stringent.” Shelby Cnty., 133
S. Ct. at 2617. And in Larios, a three-judge district court in this Circuit expressed
concern that an overall deviation in population of 10 percent was no longer a “safe
harbor” for purposes of the one person, one vote command of the Equal Protection
Clause, particularly in the light of developing technology that makes it possible to
achieve substantially greater population equality. At trial, the plaintiffs offered no
credible evidence that the percentages of the black population in the majority-black
districts adopted only ten years earlier were no longer warranted. Although Arrington
opined that a 51 percent black majority is now sufficient to allow black voters to elect
their preferred candidates of choice, he offered no election data for any of the
majority-black districts in Alabama to support that conclusion. (Ex. NPX 323, 15,
17). Arrington admitted that he testified in another action in 2000 regarding a fourdistrict plan for Dallas County, Alabama, that a district in which black persons made
up a voting-age population of 61 percent would be considered “a swing district” that
151

would offer only an opportunity for black voters to elect the candidate of their choice,
not a guarantee that black voters would be able to elect the candidate of their choice.
(Trial Tr. vol. 3, 80–81, Aug. 12, 2013). And Arrington acknowledged that “I haven’t
drawn any plans for Alabama, so I don’t know some of the nitty-gritty of some of the
districts.” (Trial Tr. vol. 3, 58, Aug. 12, 2013). Reed testified, on the other hand, that
a majority-black district in Alabama ordinarily needs to be about 60 percent black in
total population to allow black voters to elect their candidate of choice and, in some
cases, might need to be closer to 65 percent. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 156–57, Aug. 8, 2013).
Reed has, of course, been the chairman of the Alabama Democratic Conference since
1970 and has designed several redistricting plans in Alabama. As he testified at trial,
“I’ve been involved in reapportionment legislation and litigation [in Alabama] for
many years. . . . I’ve been actively involved in drawing district lines and participating in
the reapportionment process, as well as drafting plans for reapportionment, the
Legislature, state board of education, and many, many local jurisdictions.” (Trial Tr.
vol. 2, 154, Aug. 9, 2013). We credit Reed’s testimony based on his wealth of
experience in redistricting and elections in Alabama.
Our dissenting colleague ponders, “I feel as if I were in a time warp carried
back into the past, with the arguments being the same but the parties having switched
sides,” but we see the problem here as involving a rule of “heads I win, tails you lose.”
This record offers no reason to conclude that the rules for redistricting were turned
upside down when Republicans gained control of the Alabama Legislature. The
152

parties have switched sides, but the law that governs their disputes remains the same.
We refuse to read the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Amendments as mandating some kind of “Democratic candidate protection
program.” Nathaniel Persily, The Promise and Pitfalls of the New Voting Rights Act, 117
Yale L.J. 174, 223 (2007).
ii. Senate District 7
The Democratic Conference plaintiffs argue that the Legislature subordinated
traditional redistricting principles when it drew Senate District 7. Under the 2001
plan, Senate District 7 is located entirely within Madison County and runs from the
Alabama-Tennessee border down the center of the County through Huntsville. The
district divides into two feet-like segments at the bottom. According to the 2010
Census, the 2001 Senate District 7 had a total population that was 60.28 percent white
and 32.14 percent black. The left foot of the district reached into a small portion of
southwest Huntsville known as “Little Mexico” because its population is largely
Hispanic. The majority-white district was overpopulated by 9.04 percent and
surrounded by other majority-white districts that were also overpopulated. District 2,
its western neighbor, was overpopulated by 31.12 percent. Senator Dial refereed
extensive negotiations between the Republican incumbent in District 7 and the
Republican incumbents from the neighboring districts. Under the final plan, Act 603
brings District 7 within the target deviation by eliminating the left foot of the district
and moving 10,151 blacks from the western edge of the district into District 1, a
153

majority-white district represented by a Democrat. Although District 1 had not
previously shared a border with District 7, the Act brought the majority-white district
across the northern border of the State into Madison County to gain this population.
Under the new plan, District 7 has a total population that is 65.56 percent white and
27.34 percent black. (Ex. SDX 400). It is more compact than its predecessor and is
still located entirely within Madison County.
We find that the Legislature did not subordinate traditional redistricting
principles to race when it created District 7. The Legislature maintained most of
District 7 in accordance with the traditional respect for existing districts. The
Legislature reduced the population in Senate District 7 to bring it within the allowable
range of population deviation in an effort to comply with the requirement of one
person, one vote. After extensive negotiations among the Republican incumbents,
the Legislature took the excess population from the western edge and put the
population, which is largely black and votes heavily Democratic, in the district of a
Democratic incumbent. The new district is more compact, falls within the target
population deviation, and maintains a substantial minority population. We find that
the new district lines comply with traditional redistricting principles and that the
movement of the black population from the western edge of the district was made
largely for partisan, not racial, purposes. See Vera, 517 U.S. at 968, 116 S. Ct. at 1956
(“If district lines merely correlate with race because they are drawn on the basis of

154

political affiliation, which correlates with race, there is no racial classification to
justify . . . .”).
iii. Senate District 11
The Democratic Conference plaintiffs next argue that the Legislature
subordinated neutral districting principles to race when it drew Senate District 11.
District 11 changed substantially in Act 603. Under the old plan, District 11 had a
crescent shape that included all of Talladega County, Coosa County, and a small
portion of Elmore County. In 2010, District 11 was underpopulated by 8.39 percent
and had a total population that was 62.59 percent white and 33.95 percent black. (Ex.
SDX 402). Under Act 603, District 11 has moved north and now follows the shape
of a backwards C that begins in the southern part of St. Clair County, swoops through
Talladega County, and ends in the southwestern portion of Shelby County. The new
plan moves the central portion of Talladega County, which has a substantial black
population, into District 15 with a portion of Shelby County, which is heavily white.
(Trial Tr. vol. 3, 173, Aug. 12, 2013). The total population of District 11 is 81.66
percent white and 14.96 percent black. (Ex. SDX 400).
The Democratic Conference plaintiffs have not proved that the Legislature
subordinated neutral districting principles to race when it created District 11. Despite
substantial shifts of other districts, Hinaman preserved the core of the district in
Talladega County, where the incumbent lived. Hinaman also largely followed county
lines on the western borders. The district is also contiguous and complies with the
155

overall deviation in population of 2 percent. Although the Democratic Conference
plaintiffs introduced evidence that the maps could have been drawn to make District
11 more compact by swapping the population from Shelby County in District 11 with
the population from Talladega County in District 15, that fact does not establish that
race was the predominant factor. Partisanship could have similarly explained the
decision to place the central portion of Talladega in District 15. As Reed testified, a
redistricting plan can be drawn many ways, and we find that the evidence does not
support a finding that race predominated over other factors in the creation of this
district. Even if the Democratic Conference plaintiffs could prove that they have
standing to bring their claim of racial gerrymandering about Senate District 11, the
claim would fail because we find that the Legislature did not subordinate neutral
districting principles when it drew that district.
iv. Senate District 22
The Democratic Conference plaintiffs next argue that the Legislature
subordinated neutral districting principles to race when it drew Senate District 22.
District 22 is a sprawling district located in southwest Alabama. In 2010, District 22
had a total population that was 65.96 percent white, 28.30 percent black, and 3.44
percent Native American. (Ex. SDX 402). It is sandwiched between the Black Belt to
its north and the Mobile County area to its south. Although its population was within
1 percent of the ideal population in 2010, it bordered several severely malapportioned
districts. The majority-black districts to its north were underpopulated by 42,357
156

people. The three districts located within Mobile County to its south were
underpopulated by 15,656 people. And the district located in Baldwin County to its
south was overpopulated by 19,055 people. Although the drafters considered
whether they could bring one of the districts in Mobile County across Mobile Bay to
capture some of the overpopulation from Baldwin County, the Republican incumbent
in Baldwin County objected to that proposal. Because of that objection, Act 603
extended District 22 into Baldwin County and reduced its population in Mobile
County, thereby dividing the MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians among three districts.
Act 603 also repopulates the majority-black districts from contiguous portions of the
former District 22. Despite these population shifts, District 22 maintains a similar
shape under the Act and crosses into all of the same counties that it had crossed into
in 2001. The total population of the district is 73.17 percent white, 21.52 percent
black, and 2.68 percent Native American.
We find that the Legislature did not subordinate traditional neutral districting
principles to race when it drew District 22. The need to bring the neighboring
districts into compliance with the requirement of one person, one vote served as the
primary motivating factor for the changes to District 22. The protection of the
interests of incumbents also served as a motivating factor to the changes to District
22 because the drafters decided to bring District 22 into the overpopulated areas of
Baldwin County in part because the incumbent rejected any proposal in which a
district from Mobile County would cross Mobile Bay into Baldwin County. Finally,
157

the preservation of existing districts served as a motivating factor in the shape of
District 22 and the locations at which it crossed county boundaries. Although the
Legislature moved the northern boundaries of District 22 to repopulate the majorityblack districts without retrogression, that decision was motivated as much by the
effort to comply with the requirement of one person, one vote as by the effort to
avoid retrogression. Finally, there is a practical, geographical feature that materially
restricts redistricting options in Mobile County: it is cabined in by Mississippi, the
Gulf of Mexico, and Mobile Bay. And, on this record, we cannot find that the effort
to avoid retrogression or to preserve the majority-black district “had a qualitatively
greater influence on the drawing of the district lines” than the other traditional
criteria. See Vera, 517 U.S. at 969, 116 S. Ct. at 1956.
v. Senate District 26
The Democratic Conference plaintiffs did not plead in their complaint a claim
of racial gerrymandering about District 26, but we heard substantial testimony about
Senate District 26 at trial. District 26 is a majority-black district in Montgomery
County currently represented by Senator Quinton Ross (D). Under the old plans,
Senate District 26 included most of Montgomery County, following the county lines,
except for a boot shaped segment of Montgomery included within District 25. In
2010, District 26 was underpopulated by 11.64 percent and had a total population that
was 22.03 percent white and 72.75 percent black. To repopulate District 26, Hinaman
added populous precincts in the City of Montgomery, which shared many
158

characteristics with the other areas of District 26 and included both black and white
persons. Hinaman removed most of the rural portion of Montgomery County from
District 26 to create a land bridge between the former area of District 25 and
Crenshaw County. As Hinaman explained, District 25 needed to gain population
when Act 603 moved District 30 entirely north of Montgomery. Under the new
plans, District 26 is still slightly underpopulated and has a total population that is
19.51 percent white and 75.22 percent black.
The Democratic Conference plaintiffs have failed to prove that the Legislature
subordinated neutral districting principles to race when it created District 26. Race
was a factor in the drawing of District 26. The Legislature preserved the District as
majority-black and the percentage of the population that was black. But the
Legislature also preserved the core of the existing District. District 26 follows the
county lines at its northwestern border and follows the existing district lines along its
northeastern border. It maintains a similar shape around the City of Montgomery,
and it includes two protrusions into Montgomery County that largely follow highway
lines. The inclusion of additional precincts in the City of Montgomery north of
Alabama Route 80 is a reasonable response to the underpopulation of the District.
On this record, we cannot find that the Legislature subordinated traditional districting
principles to race.
Because the Democratic Conference plaintiffs failed to prove that the State
subordinated traditional districting criteria when they drew Senate Districts 7, 11, 22,
159

and 26, we need not consider whether the Districts would satisfy strict scrutiny. The
claims of racial gerrymandering fail.
4. Even if the Plaintiffs Had Proved that the Acts Were Primarily Motivated by a
Discriminatory Purpose, the Acts Would Satisfy Strict Scrutiny.
Even if the State defendants had subordinated traditional districting principles
to racial considerations when they drew the challenged Districts, the Districts would
satisfy strict scrutiny. Although the Supreme Court has never decided whether
compliance with the Voting Rights Act is a compelling state interest, we conclude that
compliance with the Act is a compelling state interest. See U.S. Const. Art. VI, § 2
(“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every
State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to
the Contrary notwithstanding.”); see also League of United Latin Am. Citizens, 548 U.S. at
518, 126 S. Ct. at 2667 (Scalia, J., joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas
and Alito, concurring in part and dissenting in part) (concluding that “compliance
with § 5 of the Voting Rights Act can be [a compelling state] interest . . . [otherwise] a
State could be placed in the impossible position of having to choose between
compliance with § 5 and compliance with the Equal Protection Clause”). And we
conclude that a plan will be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest when the racebased action taken was reasonably necessary under a constitutional reading and
application of the Act. See Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 921, 115 S. Ct. 2475, 2490–
160

91 (1995); see also Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 916, 116 S. Ct. 1894, 1906 (1996)
(holding that where the claimed interest is avoidance of liability under section 2, “the
legislative action must, at a minimum, remedy the anticipated violation or achieve
compliance to be narrowly tailored”); United Jewish Orgs. of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey,
430 U.S. 144, 161, 97 S. Ct. 996, 1007 (1977) (“Implicit in [our previous cases] is the
proposition that the Constitution does not prevent a State subject to the Voting
Rights Act from deliberately creating or preserving black majorities in particular
districts in order to ensure that its reapportionment plan complies with § 5.”).
The Alabama Legislature maintained the number of majority-black districts and
avoided significantly decreasing the percentages of black voters in those districts to
comply with section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. All parties agree, and our dissenting
colleague admits, that “Senator Dial and Representative McClendon believed that
their obligation under the Voting Rights Act included preserving the existing number
of black majority districts.” (Doc. 176, 8). We find that Senator Dial and
Representative McClendon also believed that they needed to maintain approximately
the same percentages of black voters in those majority-black districts to avoid
retrogression of black voting strength in violation of section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act. And we find that Senator Dial and Representative McClendon believed that any
significant reduction of the black population in the majority-black districts would also
likely cause a problem with preclearance of the plans by the Department of Justice.

161

The Black Caucus plaintiffs argue that, in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, --U.S. ---, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), the Supreme Court nullified the interest of the State
defendants in complying with section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, but we disagree. In
Shelby County, the Supreme Court declared the coverage formula in section 4 of the
Voting Rights Act unconstitutional because it was “based on decades-old data and
eradicated practices.” Id. at 2627. Shelby County expressed no opinion about the
constitutionality of section 5 and, even if it had, that decision would not change our
analysis. All parties agree that the State of Alabama was governed by the preclearance
requirement of section 5 when the Committee drafted and the Legislature approved
the new districts. We evaluate the plans in the light of the legal standard that
governed the Legislature when it acted, not based on a later decision of the Supreme
Court that exempted Alabama from future coverage under section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act.
But we cannot uphold the districts unless the Acts are narrowly tailored to
comply with section 5. “Although [the Supreme Court] ha[s] not always provided
precise guidance on how closely the means (the racial classification) must serve the
end (the justification or compelling interest), [the Supreme Court] ha[s] always
expected that the legislative action would substantially address, if not achieve, the
avowed purpose.” Hunt, 517 U.S. at 915, 116 S. Ct. at 1905. “[T]he purpose of
§ 5 has always been to insure that no voting-procedure changes would be made that
would lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their
162

effective exercise of the electoral franchise.” Johnson, 515 U.S. at 926, 115 S. Ct. at
2493 (quoting Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 141, 96 S. Ct. 1357, 1364 (1976)). “By
enacting section 5, Congress aimed to guarantee that minorities’ new gains in political
participation would not be undone.” Texas v. United States, 831 F. Supp. 2d 244, 250
(D.D.C. 2011).
When the Legislature confronted the task of redistricting after the 2010 Census,
Congress had recently made the standard for preclearance under section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act “more stringent.” Shelby Cnty., 133 S. Ct. at 2617. In 2006,
Congress extended the operation of section 5 and amended its text “to prohibit more
conduct than before.” Id. at 2621. Congress stated in its findings that “[t]he
effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been significantly weakened by the
United States Supreme Court decisions in [Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board, 528 U.S.
320, 120 S. Ct. 866 (1997), and Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461, 123 S. Ct. 2498
(2003),] which have misconstrued Congress’ original intent in enacting the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 and narrowed the protections afforded by section 5 of such Act.”
Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act
Reauthorization and Amendments Act, Pub. L. No. 109-246, § 2, 120 Stat. 577, §
2(b)(6) (2006). See generally Pamela S. Karlan, Georgia v. Ashcroft and the Retrogression of
Retrogression, 3 Election L.J. 21, 36 (2004) (describing Georgia v. Ashcroft as “itself a
retrogression in minority voters’ effective exercise of the electoral franchise”).

163

In Reno v. Bossier Parish, the Supreme Court ruled that section 5 “does not
prohibit preclearance of a redistricting plan enacted with a discriminatory but
nonretrogressive purpose,” 528 U.S. at 341, 120 S. Ct. at 878, but Congress
overturned that decision and amended section 5 to prohibit any change in voting
practice or procedure with a racially discriminatory purpose. In Bossier Parish, the
plaintiffs argued that the Bossier Parish School Board had a racially discriminatory
purpose when it refused to create any majority-black districts, even though the black
population of that jurisdiction was approximately 20 percent of the total population.
Id. at 323-24, 120 S. Ct. at 869. The Supreme Court ruled that it was irrelevant
whether the Board acted with a racially discriminatory purpose so long as its
redistricting plan was not enacted with a retrogressive purpose. The Court explained
that “§ 5 prevents nothing but backsliding, and preclearance under § 5 affirms nothing
but backsliding.” Id. at 335, 120 S. Ct. at 875. Congress rejected this interpretation by
adding the following language to section 5: “[t]he term ‘purpose’ . . . shall include any
discriminatory purpose.” Voting Rights Act § 5(c), 42 U.S.C. § 1973c(c) (emphasis
added).
In Georgia v. Ashcroft, the Supreme Court ruled that section 5 allows states to
consider “the totality of the circumstances,” including “the extent of the minority
group’s opportunity to participate in the political process [and] the feasibility of
creating a nonretrogressive plan,” 539 U.S. at 479, 123 S. Ct. at 2511, when drawing
district lines, but Congress overturned that holding and limited consideration to the
164

minority voters’ ability to elect their preferred candidate. 42 U.S.C. § 1973c(d). In
Georgia, the Court stated that “a court should not focus solely on the comparative
ability of a minority group to elect a candidate of choice . . . [because this factor]
cannot be dispositive or exclusive.” 539 U.S. at 480, 123 S. Ct. at 2511. The Court
also explained that section 5 “gives States flexibility to choose,” id. at 482, 123 S. Ct. at
2512, between two options: a covered jurisdiction may either create “safe” majorityblack districts “in which it is highly likely that minority voters will be able to elect the
candidate of their choice,” id. at 480, 123 S. Ct. at 2511, or spread out minority voters
over a greater number of districts where the voters “may have the opportunity to elect
a candidate of their choice,” id. at 481, 123 S. Ct. at 2512. The Court stated that the
“other highly relevant factor in a retrogression inquiry is the extent to which a new
plan changes the minority group’s opportunity to participate in the political process,”
including whether the new plan creates “‘influence districts’—where minority voters
may not be able to elect a candidate of choice but can play a substantial, if not
decisive, role in the electoral process.” Id. at 482, 123 S. Ct. at 2512. The Court
reversed a denial of judicial preclearance because the district court had “focused too
heavily on the ability of the minority group to elect a candidate of its choice in the
majority-minority districts.” Id. at 490, 123 S. Ct. at 2516. The Court then remanded
for the district court to consider whether a districting plan that reduced the
percentages of black voters in several majority-black districts and increased the
number of influence districts was retrogressive. Id. at 491, 123 S. Ct. at 2517.
165

Congress rejected the interpretation in Georgia and “sought to make clear that it was
not enough that a redistricting plan gave minority voters ‘influence’; a plan cannot
diminish their ability to elect candidates.” Texas, 831 F. Supp. 2d at 251. “In making
its Amendments, Congress sought to restore the ‘ability to elect’ standard
promulgated by the Supreme Court in Beer [v. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 96 S. Ct.
1357 (1976)].” Id. at 260.
To overturn Bossier Parish and Georgia, Congress added subsections (b) through
(d) to section 5 to prohibit “[a]ny” voting change that “has the purpose of or will have
the effect of diminishing the ability of any” voter “on account of race or color . . . to
elect their preferred candidates of choice” and stated that the purpose of that new
language was “to protect the ability of such [voters] to elect their preferred candidates
of choice.” Voting Rights Act § 5, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. “The 2006 Amendments
clarified that Congress intended a Section 5 inquiry to focus on whether a proposed
voting change will diminish the ‘ability of minority citizens to elect preferred candidates
of choice.’” Texas, 831 F. Supp. 2d at 251 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 109-478, at 71,
2006 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 671). The relevant question now is “whether the candidate
minorities voted for in the general election under the benchmark plan is equally likely
to win under the new plan. If not, then minorities’ ability to elect their preferred
candidate is diminished.” Nathaniel Persily, The Promise & Pitfalls of the New Voting
Rights Act, 117 Yale L.J. 174, 223 (2007).

166

To comply with this “more stringent” version of section 5, see Shelby Cnty., 133
S. Ct. at 2617, the Alabama Legislature correctly concluded that it could not reduce
the number of majority-black districts and that it could not significantly reduce the
percentages of black voters in the majority-black districts because to do so would be
to diminish black voters’ ability to elect their preferred candidates. Congress
eliminated the option that a state could choose, under Georgia, to create “opportunity”
or “influence” districts instead of “safe” districts that guarantee the ability of
minorities to elect their preferred candidates. The 2006 amendments created one
consideration for a state: whether minority voters are less able to elect their preferred
candidate under the new plan, not whether they have the opportunity to elect their
preferred candidate. See Texas, 831 F. Supp. 2d at 261. Congress limited the
redistricting options of states so that any diminishment in a minority’s ability to elect
its preferred candidates violates section 5. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ arguments, the
Legislature could not spread black voters out to other districts and substantially
reduce the percentages of black voters within the majority-black districts because that
change, by definition, would diminish black voters’ ability to elect their preferred
candidates. To comply with section 5, the Alabama Legislature chose the only option
available: to protect the voting strength of black voters by safeguarding the majorityblack districts and not substantially reducing the percentages of black voters within
those districts. The purpose of section 5 has always been to insure that minorities did
not lose the political gains they have acquired, and “plans that preserve or actually
167

increase minority voting strength [are not retrogressive].” Texas, 831 F. Supp. 2d at
250.
The Legislature sought to avoid diminishing black voters’ ability to elect their
preferred candidates. The Legislature preserved, where feasible, the existing majorityblack districts and maintained the relative percentages of black voters in those
majority-black districts. The Acts maintain 8 majority-black districts in the Senate and
increase the number of majority-black districts in the House from 27 to 28 based on
total population. The population levels in the existing majority-black districts had
proven sufficient to provide the black voters in those districts the opportunity to elect
the candidates of their choice. All of the current 27 majority-black House districts are
represented by Democrats, and 26 of those 27 districts are represented by black
Democrats. (Ex. NPX 350, 60–62). All of the majority-black Senate districts are
represented by Democrats, and 7 of those 8 districts are represented by black
Democrats. Using the 2010 Census data, the percentages of the black voting-age
populations in the majority-black districts under the Acts remain relatively constant
when compared to the 2001 plans. The percentages of the black voting-age
populations in 21 of the 28 majority-black House districts vary less than plus or minus
5 percent. (Ex. APX 6). And 16 of the 28 majority-black House districts vary less
than plus or minus 2 percent. (Ex. APX 6). The largest deviation occurs in House
District 59 where the black voting-age population increased from 64.25 percent to
74.28 percent. (Ex. APX 6). But the Legislature fairly balanced the overall
168

percentages of the black voting-age populations in the majority-black House districts,
with 13 districts decreasing and 15 districts increasing. (Ex. APX 6). The deviations
in percentages of the black voting-age populations in the majority-black Senate
districts are perfectly divided: 4 decreased and 4 increased. (Ex. APX 7). And 4 of
the 8 majority-black Senate districts vary less than plus or minus 2 percent. (Ex. APX
7). The largest deviation occurs in Senate District 20 where the black voting-age
population decreased from 74.44 percent to 59.03 percent. (Ex. APX 7).
We conclude that the Acts are narrowly tailored to comply with section 5 as
amended in 2006. The Legislature correctly concluded that the more stringent version
of section 5 that Congress enacted in 2006 required the Legislature to maintain, where
feasible, the existing number of majority-black districts and not substantially reduce
the relative percentages of black voters in those districts. And our conclusion is
consistent with the decision of the Department of Justice to preclear the Acts.
Our dissenting colleague disagrees with our reading of section 5 and contends
that the new districts fail strict scrutiny, but he declines to explain how the Legislature
could have satisfied section 5 without maintaining the same number of majority-black
districts and the same relative percentages of black voters in those districts. Our
dissenting colleague never denies that section 5 prohibited the Legislature from
reducing the overall number of majority-black districts in the House and Senate, and
the plaintiffs also do not suggest otherwise. Our dissenting colleague instead argues
that section 5 permitted, but somehow did not require, the Legislature to maintain the
169

same relative percentages of black voters in the majority-black districts. We are left to
wonder how the Legislature could have applied our dissenting colleague’s vague
standard of changes that are both required and permitted without violating the plain
text of the amended section 5, which forbids “[a]ny” voting change that “has the
purpose of or will have the effect of diminishing the ability of any” voter “on account
of race or color . . . to elect their preferred candidates of choice.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 1973c(b).
Our dissenting colleague gives the Legislature no credit for relying on the best
evidence available to them. The Republican-controlled Legislature followed the
example of their Democratic colleagues who a decade earlier, when members of the
Black Caucus were majority leaders, corrected the malapportionment of the majorityblack districts by adding similar percentages of black voters to those districts. The
Legislature followed that example from an era when section 5 allowed states more
flexibility in redistricting, and Alabama nevertheless obtained preclearance under the
stricter standard adopted by Congress in 2006. The leaders of the Reapportionment
Committee also followed the advice of black legislators who stated at public hearings
that the majority-black districts ordinarily needed to be at least 60 percent black in
total population. And the leaders of the Committee sought the assistance of black
legislators in drawing the new majority-black districts and then incorporated virtually
all of their suggestions for the design of those districts.

170

Our dissenting colleague instead faults Hinaman for failing to review
unidentified “studies of black voter participation in Alabama” and credits the least
credible witness on this topic, Arrington, who testified that the new districts “are part
of a strategy to put the Republican Party in the same position that the segregationist
white-only Democratic Party occupied in Alabama.” (NPX 323 at 13). But our
dissenting colleague ignores the credible testimony of the Chairman of the
Democratic Conference, Reed, that majority-black districts in Alabama ordinarily
need to be 60 percent black and sometimes 65 percent black.
Our dissenting colleague charges that “[t]here is a cruel irony” in allowing
Alabama to take credit for complying with section 5 even though state leaders argued
successfully in Shelby County that the coverage formula in section 4 was so outdated as
to be unconstitutional, but we see the irony working in the opposite way. The Voting
Rights Act was enacted in an era when Alabama persistently defied federal authority
and could not be trusted to enact racial-neutral laws in voting. See, e.g., Beer v. United
States, 425 U.S. 130, 140, 96 S. Ct. 1357, 1363 (1976); H.R. Rep. No. 89-439, at 5
(1965), reprinted in 1965 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2437, 2441. But nearly a half-century later
Alabama had a record of regular compliance with section 5. The Department of
Justice had not even objected to a state-wide preclearance submission in more than 16
years, and in the decade before the amendment of section 5 in 2006, the Department
had not objected to any submission from any level of government—state, county, or
municipal—save for one submission from the City of Calera. See Brief of State of
171

Alabama as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner at 12, Shelby Cnty., Ala. v. Holder, --U.S. ---, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013) (No. 12-96). Governor Wallace and segregation are
long gone, and Alabama has virtually eliminated any racial gap in voter registration or
participation. See id. at 11. Even though state leaders expressed the view that
Alabama now deserves to be treated on equal footing with other states, for decades
they nevertheless obeyed section 5 because controlling precedents of the Supreme
Court held that this extraordinary measure remained operative. The real irony would
come from punishing Alabama for striving in good faith to comply with section 5
even though that law was enacted to remedy a pattern of defiance and evasion.
III. CONCLUSION
Redistricting has been called a “political thicket,” see Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S.
549, 556, 66 S. Ct. 1198, 1201 (1946), where judicial decrees can “cut deeply into the
fabric of our federalism,” Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 624, 84 S. Ct. at 1414 (Harlan, J.,
dissenting), but our review of a redistricting plan, once adopted, is limited. We do not
consider whether a redistricting plan is “bad,” as Reed described the redistricting Acts
adopted by the Legislature last year. Nor do we consider whether a plan is good or
one that we would have drawn. We consider only whether a plan violates the Voting
Rights Act and the Constitution. These plans violate neither. We DISMISS the
claims of racial gerrymandering filed by the Democratic Conference plaintiffs for lack
of standing; in the alternative, we GRANT judgment in favor of the State Defendants
on the claims of racial gerrymandering filed by the Democratic Conference plaintiffs.
172

We DISMISS as not justiciable the claim of vote dilution based on the local House
delegation in Jefferson County; in the alternative, we GRANT judgment in favor of
the State Defendants on the claim of vote dilution based on the local House
delegation in Jefferson County. We GRANT judgment in favor of the State
defendants on all remaining claims. A separate final judgment will follow.

173