Small minority group cannot seek Cumulative Voting as remedy
The Eleventh Circuit: We hold that a protected minority group pursuing a vote dilution claim under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has no right to relief unless it can demonstrate that, in the absence of the challenged voting structure or practice, its members would have the ability to elect the candidate of its choice. If the group is too small to elect candidates of its choice in the absence of a challenged structure or practice, then it is the size of the minority population that results in the plaintiff’s injury, and not the challenged structure or practice. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant additional relief in this case, because it correctly found that no further relief was available. --Dillard v. Baldwin County Commission (13 July 2004)
The plaintiffs had sought to have the 7-SMD plan converted to a Cumulative Voting plan when the intervenors challenged the SMD plan under the doctrine of Holder v. Hall. Disclosure: I was co-counsel for the plaintiffs when the SMD plan was adopted, but was not involved in the latest round of litigation.
Comments
Ed,
I'm curious. How small was the minority group in question in the Dillard decision? What per cent of the electorate in the 7 smds if summed? How many, if any, of the 7 smd seats did it win under the prevailing system? [I presume none.] And, against what kinds of proposed cumulative voting schemes was it determined to be too small to achieve any relief even if that change were put into effect? For example, in a seven-member at-large district with cumulation of up to seven votes? Or, perhaps, a three-member and a four-member scheme? It seems to me that if it won no seats under the prevailing arrangements, unless the minority in question is really small it should have found some relief through moving to a cumulative voting system. It would be interesting to do the "math" for different putuative designs.
Paul Johnston
Posted by: Paul Johnston | July 17, 2004 12:51 PM