Full opinion text
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. Plaintiffs, who are Latino voters and advocacy groups, challenge two congressional districts and one state legislative district adopted by the State of California as part of its most recent redistricting process. Plaintiffs contend that the three districts violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, under various legal theories. These theories raise challenging questions regarding the applicability of voting rights doctrines developed in a fundamentally different context than the rapidly-changing multi-racial and multi-ethnic community that is present-day Southern California. We conclude, with respect to each of the three districts at issue in this case, that the legislature permissibly exercised its broad discretion to draw district lines, and that, in doing so, it violated neither the Voting Rights Act nor the Constitution. Accordingly, we grant in full defendants’ and defendants-intervenors’ motions for summary judgment. BACKGROUND Factual and Legal Background In the summer of 2001, California engaged in the decennial task of redrawing its state and federal legislative districts to account for population changes documented in the 2000 census. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 583-84, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506, (1964) (requiring periodic redistricting); Cal. Const. Art. XXI, § 1 (requiring legislative redistricting in the year following the national census). As a result of California’s population growth relative to that of other states, the census disclosed that the state was entitled to one additional congressional seat. Accordingly, the legislature was charged with drawing 53 congressional districts, as well as the unchanged number of State Senate and Assembly districts prescribed by state law, 40 and 80 respectively. California requires that the districts in each of these categories be compact and contiguous, that they respect as much as possible the integrity of the boundary lines of political subdivisions such as cities and counties, and that they preserve other local communities of interest. Cal. Const. Art. XXI, § 1; Wilson v. Eu, 1 Cal.4th 707, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 379, 823 P.2d 545, 552-53 (1992). Over the course of the summer of 2001, the legislature conducted public hearings throughout the state at which various public interest groups and others articulated general concerns regarding the redistricting process, and proposed specific changes to the district lines that had been drawn after the 1990 census. Among those commenting was the highly-influential Mexi-ean-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (“MALDEF”), which serves as counsel to plaintiffs in this case. At least two of the organizational plaintiffs in this case, as well as other Latino advocacy groups, also testified at the various hearings on redistricting. On August 31, 2001, the Senate Elections and Reapportionment Committee promulgated a proposed redistricting plan for State Senate and Congressional Districts. The principal map-drawing consultant retained by the Senate was Michael Berman, a fixture in California redistricting processes and the brother of Congressman Howard Berman, an incumbent in one of the congressional districts at issue in this case. It is alleged that Michael Berman was also retained by members of the California congressional delegation, many of whom paid his organization $20,000 a person to represent their interests in the redistricting process. A two-day legislative hearing was held on September 4-5 in Sacramento, with video-conferencing in other sites around the state, at which the Assembly and Senate redistricting committees heard public comment on the draft plan. Latino groups, among others, testified regarding the proposed Congressional and State Senate Districts. Some groups, including the Latino advocacy groups mentioned above, suggested changes; certain of these were adopted. Both houses of the California Legislature voted to enact the second version of the plan: the Senate voted 38-2 in favor of the bill on September 12, 2001; the next day the Assembly approved it by a margin of 70-10. Twenty-three of the twenty-six Latino state legislators voted for the measure, including every Latino State Senator. Governor Davis signed the redistricting plan into law on September 27, 2001. Plaintiffs filed this action several days thereafter, and this three-judge district court was convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a). Plaintiffs are a number of Latino voters who reside in and adjacent to the districts that are challenged in the action, as well as several Latino advocacy and human service organizations. Defendants include Governor Gray Davis, Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante, Secretary of State Bill Jones, Senate President John Burton, and Assembly Speaker Herb Wesson. Additionally, several parties, including the California Republican Party and the California State Senate, have intervened as defendants. Plaintiffs challenge the legality of three districts: Congressional District 28 (“CD 28”), which is located in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles County; Congressional District 51 (“CD 51”), the southernmost congressional district in the state, which includes portions of San Diego County and the entirety of Imperial County; and State Senate District 27 (“SD 27”), which is comprised of several communities in Southeast Los Angeles County, including parts of the City of Long Beach. In their first amended complaint, plaintiffs advance three legal theories. They allege a Shaw claim: a claim that CD28 and CD 51 are racially gerrymandered districts in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, under the cause of action first set forth by the Supreme Court in Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 113 S.Ct. 2816, 125 L.Ed.2d 511 (1993) (“Shaiv I ”). They next allege that the legislature intentionally diluted the vote of Latinos in the San Fernando Valley and in San Diego County (the areas in which the two challenged congressional districts are located), in violation of both the Equal Protection Clause and § 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Finally, they allege that the new boundary lines of CD 28, as well as of SD 27 (located in Southeast Los Angeles County) have the effect of diluting the Latino vote in contravention of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Procedural History Soon after the complaint was filed, plaintiffs applied for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), asking that this court enjoin the use of the new district lines and postpone the March, 2002; primary election until another districting plan could be adopted. On November 1, 2001, the court heard oral argument on plaintiffs’ motion, and subsequently denied the TRO application. Cano v. Davis, 191 F.Supp.2d 1135 (C.D.Cal.2001) (per curiam). Two challenges to the state redistricting statute were filed in.the California state courts. See Andal v. Davis, Sacramento Superior Court No. 01-CS-01397; Kennedy v. Davis, Santa Clara Superior Court No. CV-803679. Citing these two actions, defendants moved to defer adjudication of the case pursuant to the doctrine established in Railroad Comm’n of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 61 S.Ct. 643, 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941). Because it was altogether speculative that the state court actions, which involved districts in Northern California, would lead to changes in the redistricting plan that would affect the districts challenged in this case, we denied the deferral motion. Cano v. Davis, 191 F.Supp.2d 1140 (C.D.Cal.2002) (per cu-riam). This court also decided motions asserting the legislative privilege of state legislators and their aides, filed in response to discovery demands by plaintiffs, Cano v. Davis, 193 F.Supp.2d 1177 (C.D.Cal.2002), as well as a motion to quash thé taking of depositions from certain members of Congress. In light of the important statutory and constitutional claims asserted by plaintiffs, we established an expedited discovery and trial schedule; discovery was scheduled to conclude on May 31, 2002, and has been extended to June 14, 2002, by agreement of the parties. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims, and we set 'a hearing for May 13, 2002. Plaintiffs did'not seek'to defer the hearing, or our ruling on the motion, pending the completion of discovery. We conducted the hearing as scheduled and heard extensive oral argument. DISCUSSION I. Plaintiffs’ Racial Gerrymandering Claims Plaintiffs assert that both CD 28 and CD 51 violate the Equal Protection Clause under the “racial gerrymander” doctrine set forth in Shaw I. The districts in question, however, cannot reasonably be understood to segregate voters into racial enclaves, and thus fail to state a Shaw claim as a matter of law. We reject plaintiffs’ expansive theory of the racial gerrymander doctrine, which would throw into doubt the validity of countless legislative districts nationwide. Moreover, even were such an expansive interpretation of the doctrine warranted, plaintiffs have failed to offer evidence showing that the California legislature abandoned traditional districting principles in the configuration of these two districts, or subordinated those principles to racial considerations. A. Background In Shaw I, plaintiffs challenged on equal protection grounds North Carolina’s 12th Congressional District, which was a majority-black district drawn primarily for the purpose of meeting the preclearance demands of the United States Department of Justice during the 1990 round of redistricting. The shape of the 12th district was, to put it mildly, bizarre; it was a narrow, serpentine band that stretched for 160 miles along Interstate 85 and featured a series of tentacles reaching out from the interstate corridor to draw scattered and disparate black neighborhoods into the district. Id. at 635-36, 113 S.Ct. 2816. It was the least geographically compact congressional district in the nation. Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 906, 116 S.Ct. 1894, 135 L.Ed.2d 207 (1996) (“Shaw II ”). The Shaiü I Court reversed the three-judge district court’s dismissal of the action, and held that plaintiffs had stated a racial gerrymander claim under the Equal Protection Clause. Id. at 658, 113 S.Ct. 2816. “In some exceptional cases,” Shaw I held, “a reapportionment plan may be so highly irregular that, on its face, it rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to segregate voters on the basis of race.” Id. at 646-47, 113 S.Ct. 2816 (internal citations and quotations omitted). As the Court subsequently explained, in order to prevail on what has come to be known as a Shaw claim, “[r]ace must not simply have been a motivation for the drawing of a majority minority district, but the ‘predominant factor motivating the legislature’s decision. Plaintiffs must show that a facially neutral law is unexplainable on grounds other than race.” Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 241-42, 121 S.Ct. 1452, 149 L.Ed.2d 430 (2001) (“Cromartie II”) (emphases in original) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Although Shaw I relied primarily on the bizarre shape of the district at issue in concluding that it was an impermissible racial gerrymander, 509 U.S. at 647, 113 S.Ct. 2816 (“[RJeapportionment is one area in which appearances do matter”), the Court held in Miller v. Johnson that a district need not “be bizarre on its face before there is a constitutional violation.” 515 U.S. 900, 912, 115 S.Ct. 2475, 132 L.Ed.2d 762 (1995). Rather, Miller held that a district’s shape is relevant only as “persuasive circumstantial evidence that race for its own sake, and not other dis-tricting principles, was the legislature’s dominant and controlling rationale for drawing its district lines.” Id. at 913, 115 S.Ct. 2475. All of the racial gerrymandering cases emphasize that a plaintiff bringing such a claim faces an extraordinarily high burden. See, e.g., Cromartie II, 532 U.S. at 241, 121 S.Ct. 1452 (“[T]he burden of proof on the plaintiffs (who attack the district) is a demanding one.”) (internal citations and quotations omitted); Miller, 515 U.S. at 929, 115 S.Ct. 2475 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (“Shaw’s basic objective” is to “make[] extreme instances of racial gerrymandering subject to meaningful judicial review”); Shaw I, 509 U.S. at 646, 113 S.Ct. 2816 (noting that a violation will only occur in “exceptional cases”). The Supreme Court has also recognized the undeniable reality that the interests of racial groups are often part of a legislature’s rationale for drawing a particular set of district lines. Miller, 515 U.S. at 916, 115 S.Ct. 2475 (“Redistricting legislatures will ... almost always be aware of racial demographics ....”); Shaw I, 509 U.S. at 646, 113 S.Ct. 2816 (“[RJedistricting differs from other kinds of state decisionmaking in that the legislature always is aware of race when it draws district lines (emphasis in original). Indeed, as racial minorities continue to struggle- to overcome the legacy of official discrimination in election practices, awareness of race is essential to fairness in districting. For this reason, the provisions of the Voting Rights Act oftentimes require a redistricting legislature to consider the effect of its decisions on the political power of racial groups, and to take race into' account when drawing lines. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973, 1973c. The necessity of considering race, at least to some degree, when redistricting, creates a tension between a legislature’s constitutional obligations as set forth in Shaw and its obligations under the Voting Rights Act. See Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952, 994, 116 S.Ct. 1941, 135 L.Ed.2d 248 (1996) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (“The [Voting Rights Act] requires the States and the courts to take action to remedy the reality of racial inequality in our political system, sometimes necessitating race-based action, while the Fourteenth Amendment requires us to look with suspicion on the excessive use of racial considerations by the government.”). It is for this reason that a Shaw violation will result only in the exceptional case in which a district is “unexplainable on grounds other than race” and the particular harms described in Shaw occur. Cromartie II, 532 U.S. at 242, 121 S.Ct. 1452 (internal quotations and citations omitted). The Shaw doctrine is unusual in that, unlike most constitutional doctrines, it requires no concrete injury. Rather, one of the two principal harms identified in Shaw I is an “expressive” harm that results solely from the classification of voters on the basis of race, a practice the Shaw I Court held “bears an uncomfortable resemblance to political apartheid.” 509 U.S. at 647, 113 S.Ct. 2816; see Richard H. Pildes & Richard G. Niemi, Expressive Harms, “Bizarre Districts, ” and Voting Rights: Evaluating Election-District Appearances After Shaw v. Reno, 92 Mich. L. Rev. 483, 485 (1993). This “expressive” harm “reinforces the perception that members of the same racial group ... think alike, share the same political interests, and will prefer the same candidates at the polls.” Shaw I, 509 U.S. at 647, 113 S.Ct. 2816. The other harm discussed in Shaw I is a “representational” harm. That is, when a district “obviously is created solely to effectuate the perceived common interests of one racial group,” a representative elected from that district — who is supposed to represent all of his constituents, regardless of whether they supported him — will feel bound only to advance the interests of the racial group that dominates the district. Id. at 648, 113 S.Ct. 2816. B. Plaintiffs’ Evidence of Purported Racial Gerrymandering Does Not Establish A Shaw Violation. Pláintiffs allege that both CD 28 and CD 51 constitute impermissible racial gerrymanders. With respect to CD 51, plaintiffs assert that the exclusion from the district of certain Latino neighborhoods in the City of San Diego, including Barrio Logan, Logan Heights, Golden Hill, Sherman Heights and others, violated the Equal Protection Clause under the doctrine established in Shaw I. All but one of these neighborhoods had previously been represented by Congressman Robert Fil-ner, the incumbent in CD 51 (which had been numbered CD 53 following the enactment of the 1990 Special Masters’ Plan); plaintiffs allege that the failure to include the areas in the reconfigured district violates Shaw because the legislature’s decision was based solely on racial considerations. According to plaintiffs, the legislature excluded the neighborhoods in question in order to maintain a specific racial balance in the district. Plaintiffs make similar arguments with respect to CD 28. There, the legislature’s redistricting plan placed Latino neighborhoods in Van Nuys, Sylmar, and Burbank that were previously represented by the incumbent congressman, Rep. Howard Berman, in a neighboring congressional district (although a small portion of the transferred territory was assigned to a third district that also adjoined the district represented by Berman). Plaintiffs contend that the legislature removed these areas from CD 28 (which had previously been numbered 26 following enactment of the Special Masters’ Plan), solely to reduce the number of Latinos in that district. Even assuming plaintiffs’ allegations of racial intent to be true, as we do for purposes of this summary judgment motion, the rationale underlying Shaw is simply inapplicable to the districts at issue here. Plaintiffs’ two Shaw claims are not addressed to the types of districts ordinarily at issue in the Supreme Court’s racial gerrymandering cases. For one, these are not race-based districts that “balkanize us into competing racial factions” or deliberately segregate voters into separate racial enclaves. Shaw I, 509 U.S. at 657, 113 S.Ct. 2816. They cannot, under any fair reading, be characterized as “white districts” or “Caucasian districts.” Nor are they districts that can only be reasonably understood to “belong” to one ethnic or racial group. To the contrary, the districts at issue here are diverse and multi-ethnic: each contains a variety of racial and ethnic groups; none unites any single group of individuals within its boundaries for the purpose of permitting that group to exercise hegemony. In fact, Latinos are the largest number of persons in any single racial or ethnic group in each district, and the number of whites in each case is substantially lower. In CD 28, for example, the voting-age population is 49.2% Latino, 37.2% white, 6.9% Asian, and 4.3% black. Congressional District 51 is even more diverse: in that district the voting-age population is 49% Latino, 25.1% white, 13.8% Asian, and 9.7% black. There is no evidence that the legislature sought to ensure that voters of any particular race would dominate either district. Perhaps for this reason, one searches the record in vain for evidence of the type of harms that Shaw claims are designed to remedy — -the “representational” and “expressive” harms described in Shaw I. First, it is impossible to conclude that either district gives rise to the type of “representational” harm described in Shaw I. In neither district does any single racial or ethnic group comprise more than 39.8% of the registered electorate. It would therefore be political folly, if not suicide, for a representative in either district to consider it his “primary obligation” to act as the representative of a single racial or ethnic group. Shaw I, 509 U.S. at 648, 113 S.Ct. 2816. The message sent to future representatives by the creation of these two districts is not a “pernicious” one: that “they represent a particular racial group rather than their constituency as a whole.” Id. To the contrary, the message communicated by the redistricting plan is that in order to succeed in either of these districts a representative must build and maintain multi-racial coalitions. Cf. Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1020, 114 S.Ct. 2647, 129 L.Ed.2d 775 (1994) (“Minority voters are not immune from the obligation to pull, haul and trade to find common political ground ....”). Nor is there evidence of the “expressive” harm that the Court described in Shaw I. These districts are not assemblages of “... individuals who belong to the same race, but who are otherwise widely separated by geographical and political boundaries, and ... have little in common with one another but the color of their skin.” Shaw I, 509 U.S. at 647, 113 S.Ct. 2816. Rather, each of the districts is ethnically diverse, and no one group constitutes a majority in either. Their demographic make-up thus conveys no message that constitutional principles have been disregarded, or that the legislature sanctions racial classifications. This is particularly true when one considers the shape of the districts in question. See Miller, 515 U.S. at 912, 115 S.Ct. 2475 (noting that the harm in Shaw I derived from the “appearance [of the district] in combination with certain demographic evidence.”). Where a district’s shape signals that it was created for the purpose of aggregating voters of a particular race, without regard to whether they have distinct interests besides their shared racial heritage, a Shaw violation may result. Shaw I, 509 U.S. at 647, 113 S.Ct. 2816. Where such graphic indicia of racial districting are absent, the likelihood of “expressive harm” is reduced, if not eliminated. See Pildes & Niemi, supra, at 614 (“Race-as-a-factor districts of a more compact nature are less likely to send these messages. Rather, they are likely to be viewed as primarily dependent on neutral, nonracial facts, such as geographical and political boundaries. To be sure, a racial group may be disproportionately present in compact districts, but this can be seen as the result of residential housing patterns, not an intent to draw a line in order to reaffirm racial differences.”). While, as noted earlier, the Court has instructed that a district need not “be bizarre on its face before there is a constitutional violation,” Miller, 515 U.S. at 912, 115 S.Ct. 2475, it is nonetheless true that the shape of the districts has been a significant factor in the outcome of the Shaw cases. See, e.g., id. at 917, 115 S.Ct. 2475. See also Vera, 517 U.S. at 965, 116 S.Ct. 1941; Id. at 972, 116 S.Ct. 1941; Id. at 973-74, 116 S.Ct. 1941; Cromartie II, 532 U.S. at 240, 243, 121 S.Ct. 1452. The districts drawn by the legislature in the San Fernando Valley and in San Diego/Imperial Counties do not signal that voters were placed in one district or another because of their race. Indeed, both their shape and the balance of the evidence in the record suggests that the legislature did not violate the principle that race is a permissible criterion to use in the redistricting so long as it is not the predominant criterion. In the case of each district, the population shifts that are the subject of plaintiffs’ Shaw claims represent a relatively minor portion of the districts at issue. Moreover, the removals of Latino voters were made at the margins or perimeters of the districts, and the districts as a whole remained largely unchanged (except for the added territories). The most recent of the Supreme Court’s racial gerrymandering cases, Cro-martie II, illustrates that such discrete population shifts cannot constitute a Shaw violation. In that case, there was evidence presented that the state legislature’s map-drawing consultant had moved approximately 60,000 black voters into a district, presumably on the basis of their race. 532 U.S. at 254, 121 S.Ct. 1452. Nevertheless, the Cromartie II Court reversed the three-judge district court’s finding of a Shaw violation as clearly erroneous, because there was insufficient evidence to show that the district was unexplainable on a basis other than race. Id. at 257, 121 S.Ct. 1452. The same holds true here; even if the perimeter Latino neighborhoods in question were removed from the districts intentionally because of their ethnic demographics, there is no evidence in the record that either district as a whole is a “white” district or that it is explainable only in terms of race. To adopt plaintiffs’ sweeping construction of the racial gerrymandering doctrine would render suspect virtually any legislative decision regarding the districts in which to place areas or groups of precincts that are predominantly populated by one racial or ethnic group. Such an approach would render meaningless the guarantee that the Shaw doctrine “does not throw into doubt the vast majority of the Nation’s 435 congressional districts ... even though race may have been considered in the redistricting process.” Miller, 515 U.S. at 928-29, 115 S.Ct. 2475 (O’Connor, J., concurring). Plaintiffs contend that a group of Latino residents was excluded from each of CD 28 and CD 51 in order to ensure that the number of Latino residents in those districts did not rise above a certain percentage. To the extent that this is true, it implicates the Equal Protection Clause as a claim of constitutional vote dilution, not as an “analytically distinct” claim of racial gerrymandering. Miller, 515 U.S. at 915, 115 S.Ct. 2475. What plaintiffs seek as a Shaw remedy is a redistricting plan that contains the maximum number of majority-Latino districts possible. This is not a requirement of constitutional districting. See Shaw II, 517 U.S. at 913, 116 S.Ct. 1894 (“We have recognized that a ‘State’s policy of adhering to other districting principles instead of creating as many majority-minority districts as possible does not support an inference that the plan ‘so discriminates on the basis of race or color as to violate the Constitution’....’”) (quoting Miller, 515 U.S. at 924, 115 S.Ct. 2475). Cf. Be Grandy, 512 U.S. at 1017, 114 S.Ct. 2647 (“Failure to maximize cannot be the measure of § 2”). To hold otherwise would subvert the most basic principle of Shaw and the subsequent racial gerrymandering cases. C. Plaintiffs Put Forth No Evidence That Traditional Districting Principles Were Not Followed and Were Subordinated to Racial Considerations. Defendants are also entitled to summary judgment for another reason made clear in both Shaw I and Miller: plaintiffs have failed to raise a question of material fact as to whether, in drawing CD 28 and CD 51, the state abandoned its traditional dis-tricting principles, or subordinated them to racial considerations. This is so. because no reasonable trier of fact could conclude from the evidence in the record that in either district the legislature “subordinated traditional race-neutral district-ing principles, including but not limited to compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions or communities defined by actual shared interests, to racial considerations.” Miller, 515 U.S. at 916, 115 S.Ct. 2475. In order to prevail on a Shaw claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate both that the legislature was predominantly motivated by racial intent in constructing the challenged district and that it ignored traditional districting principles in its zeal to pursue a racial objective. Cromartie II, 532 U.S. at 242-43, 121 S.Ct. 1452; Shaw II, 517 U.S. at 902, 116 S.Ct. 1894; DeWitt v. Wilson, 856 F.Supp. 1409, 1412-13 (E.D.Cal.1994) (three-judge court), aff'd, 515 U.S. 1170, 115 S.Ct. 2637, 132 L.Ed.2d 876 (1995). Perhaps the paramount race-neutral dis-tricting principle under California law is the constitutionally-mandated and court-ordered principle that legislative districts follow local political subdivision boundaries to the extent possible consistent with other districting requirements. Cal. Const., Art. XXI; Legislature v. Reinecke, 10 Cal.3d 396, 110 Cal.Rptr. 718, 516 P.2d 6, 10 (1973). Courts examining racial gerrymandering claims have found adherence to local political subdivisions to be highly probative evidence that a district does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. See, e.g., Harvell v. Blytheville Sch. Dist., 126 F.3d 1038, 1041 (8th Cir.1997) (rejecting a Shaw challenge to a district court’s remedial plan .in a § 2.vote dilution case in part because the remedial districts, although majority-minority, did not split local political units). The districts challenged here under Shaw are reasonably compact and contiguous. They are no more irregular in shape than any other district created by the legislature, and certainly do not constitute a threshold showing of bizarreness that would support an inference that the districts are racially gerrymandered. There is undisputed evidence in the record that the redistricting statute both achieved the precise mathematical equality in congressional district populations required by Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725, 730, 103 S.Ct. 2653, 77 L.Ed.2d 133 (1983), and decreased the number of city-splits in congressional districts statewide from 144 to 32. More important, though, there is also specific, uncontradicted evidence that the traditional districting principles applied statewide were not abandoned, but rather were rigorously applied, in the configuration of both CD 51 and CD 28. 1. Congressional District 51 (San Diego and Imperial Counties) In the case of CD 51, the entirety of Imperial County was added to the district, which had previously been comprised only of portions of San Diego County. Although this addition resulted in the district becoming less compact, the inclusion of Imperial County occurred between the first and second drafts of the plan at the urging of Latino advocacy organizations which contended that the Latino residents of Imperial County shared a community of interest with the Latino residents of San Diego County, because both counties are situated adjacent to the Mexican border. In light of the addition of the 142,361 residents of Imperial County to CD 51, there is no question that it was necessary to remove other areas from the district in order to maintain' the required population level. There is also no question that the aireas that were removed were largely Latino neighborhoods. It is the removal of these neighborhoods that plaintiffs challenge. 'The objective and undisputed evidence demonstrates that in determining what changes should be made with respect to the geography and demographic composition of the district, the legislature respected local political subdivision lines and, for the most part, kept existing communities of interest united in the district. The district includes Imperial County in its entirety, for instance, rather than solely Latino or non-Latino enclaves from within that county. The district also includes the entire cities of Chula Vista and National City, and does not subdivide either of those localities. Although CD 51 contains just a portion of the City of San Diego, that city is too large to be contained in any single congressional district; thus, that city-split was unavoidable. Moreover, the district maintains intact black and Filipino communities of interest; the record contains undisputed evidence that leaders of both those communities sought to keep their neighborhoods in CD 51 because of an affinity for Rep. Filner and approval of the leadership role he has assumed on issues of importance to them. Finally, the portion of CD 51 that the legislature removed during redistricting in order to compensate for the addition of Imperial County is a compact area on the northwestern perimeter of the district; in making this choice, the legislature preserved the essential core of the previous district. As in Cromartie II, defendants also offer the justification that politics, not race, was the reason that the legislature chose to remove particular areas from the district. Here, the proffered political explanation is the desire to strengthen the dominant political party’s electoral base in a politically-marginal district that abuts CD 51. The adjacent district, CD 53, to which the neighborhoods were transferred, was represented by Rep. Susan Davis, a first-term Democrat who defeated a Republican incumbent in 2000. Before the redistricting, CD 53 — in contrast to CD 51 — was hardly a safe Democratic seat: it contained 39.1% Democrats and 36% Republicans. By the end of the decade, because of population shifts, it also contained 52,000 persons fewer than the ideal congressional district. As a result of the redistricting plan, CD 53 is now a much safer Democratic seat: 42.3% of its voters are registered Democrats, and 32% are enrolled as Republicans. It now also meets precisely the equipopulous requirement. See n. 14, supra. Plaintiffs do not dispute that the transfer of Latino neighborhoods into CD 53 raised the proportion of Democratic voters in that district; they merely respond that defendants might have achieved the same goal without ■ transferring Latino voters from CD 51 to CD 53. Whether this assertion is true — and we assume in connection with this motion that it is — is irrelevant for purposes of Shaw liability. Defendants have come forward with a substantial, uncontroverted non-racial reason for the drawing of the lines in CD 51: the protection of an incumbent in an adjoining district, a well-established legitimate districting criterion. White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783, 793-97, 93 S.Ct. 2348, 37 L.Ed.2d 335 (1973). Most important, plaintiffs have put forth no specific evidence demonstrating that defendants abandoned traditional district-ing principles when drawing CD 51. The district 'constitutes a typical Congressional district that comports with traditional dis-tricting principles. Plaintiffs dispute this, arguing that the evidence they have adduced that Latino voters were'excluded from CD 51 based on their race mandates that this claim , proceed to trial. Citing the Supreme Court’s reversal of the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in Hunt v. Cromartie, plaintiffs argue that “[t]he legislature’s motivation is itself a factual question,” 526 U.S. 541, 549, 119 S.Ct. 1545, 143 L.Ed.2d 731 (1999) (“Cromartie I”), and thus that summary judgment is not proper. Specifically, they contend that, having produced some evidence that some voters were placed in CD 51 or CD 53 based on them race, there is necessarily a triable issue of fact as to whether race was the predominant factor in the districting decision. In essence, plaintiffs contend that summary judgment is never available- to a defendant on a Shaw claim where any evidence of intent is present. This is not the case. It is true that the Cromartie I Court stated that “[reasonable inferences from the undisputed facts [could] be drawn in favor of a racial motivation finding or in favor of a political motivation finding,” and thus that “it was error' for the District Court to resolve the disputed fact of motivation at the summary judgment stage.” Id. at 552, 119 S.Ct. 1545. We note, however, Justice Stevens’ observation in his concurring opinion that the Court did “not have before [it] the question whether the District Court erred in denying the State’s motion for summary judgment....” Id. at 558, 119 S.Ct. 1545 (Stevens, J., concurring). Subsequently, the Court reversed the district court’s entry of judgment in plaintiffs’ favor following trial, holding that their evidence of intent was not adequate to prove a Shaw violation. Cromartie II, 532 U.S. at 257-58, 121 S.Ct. 1452. The history of Cromartie II convinces us that it is permissible to determine on summary judgment that the evidence of intent proffered by a Shaw plaintiff is not sufficient, under the “demanding” burden such a plaintiff admittedly has, see id. at 241, 121 S.Ct. 1452, to raise an inference that race was the predominant motivation for a dis-tricting decision. Our view of the evidence in the present case, moreover, is informed by the Supreme Court’s statement in Vera, 517 U.S. at 962, 116 S.Ct. 1941, that “neglect of traditional districting criteria is ... [a] necessary” element of a Shaw claim. See also Cromartie II, 532 U.S. at 241, 121 S.Ct. 1452 (“... those who claim that a legislature has improperly used race as a criterion ... must show at a minimum that the ‘legislature subordinated traditional race-neutral districting principles ... to racial considerations.’ ”). Plaintiffs contend that, having put forward some evidence of intent, they have no burden other than to meet any non-racial explanations for the district proffered by defendants. They assert they have drawn maps that show that the legislature could have kept the Latino communities at the northwestern boundary of- CD 51 within the district, and that this demonstrates that traditional districting criteria do not explain the decision that was made. The fact that the district could have been drawn differently, however, does not demonstrate that traditional districting principles were subordinated, to race.. Here, as detailed above, the undisputed evidence shows that the district in question is relatively compact and contiguous, that it does not split cities, and that it meets the state’s obligation to draw equipopulous districts. Also as noted, the legislature has proffered a non-racial justification for placing the Latino communities in question in CD 53— to increase the Democratic registration of that district, which was the lowest of any district represented by a Democratic member of Congress in the state, and which remains the lowest following redistricting. The fact that this could have been achieved by placing the Latino communities in CD 51 and moving other Democratic voters to CD 53 is not evidence that traditional dis-tricting principles were subordinated to race. See id. at 249, 121 S.Ct. 1452 (“we recognize that some ... other ways [to create a safely Democratic district] may exist. But, unless the evidence also shows that these hypothetical alternative districts would have better satisfied the legislature’s other nonracial political goals as luell as traditional nonracial, districting principles, this -fact alone cannot show an improper legislative motive.”) (emphasis supplied). This is particularly true since the court must accord a presumption of good faith to the legislative decision. See Miller, 515 U.S. at 916, 115 S.Ct. 2475. •'“[A] legislature’s compliance with ‘traditional districting principles such as compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions’ may well suffice to refute a claim of racial gerrymandering.” Id. at 919, 115 S.Ct. 2475. Here, given the configuration of the district, and the nature of the changes made during the districting process, the record shows, at most, that the legislature took race into account along with traditional districting principles. Yet a Shaw claim exists “[o]nly if traditional districting criteria are neglected ... predominantly due to the misuse of race..” Vera, 517 U.S. at 993, 116 S.Ct. 1941 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (emphasis supplied). As there "is no evidence that such principles were “neglected” in drawing CD 51, plaintiffs’ Shaw claim must fail. A word must be said about the eviden-tiary significance of the opinion offered by Dr. J. Morgan Kousser, plaintiffs’ expert. Rélying on the intent evidence described above, Dr. Kousser offers the opinion that race was the predominant factor in the legislature’s decision to draw CD 51 as it did. As the Court stated in Cromartie II regarding the similar opinion of plaintiffs’ expert in that, case, “this statement of the conclusion is no stronger than the evidence that underlies it.” 532 U.S. at 249, 121 S.Ct. 1452. Having concluded that plaintiffs’ evidence of racial intent — the very evidence on which Dr. Kousser relies— does not raise a triable issue of fact regarding the subordination of traditional districting principles to race in constructing CD 51, Dr. Kousser’s statement to the contrary likewise cannot suffice. While he focuses heavily on evidence of intent, Dr. Kousser does not squarely address whether the legislature neglected traditional dis-tricting principles. Indeed, he acknowledges that “MALDEF drew districts in the same general areas [as the legislature] that appear just as compact.” As respects CD 51 in particular, he asserts only that the legislature’s district is “no more compact than MALDEF’s suggestion,” and “cannot be said to preserve communities of interest more adequately than its alternatives.” These statements suffer the same fate as the argument advanced in plaintiffs’ brief that CD 53 could have been strengthened for the Democratic incumbent, Davis, by moving voters other than those in the Latino communities to the north and west of CD 51 into her district. While there may be “other ways” to achieve the legislature’s objectives, the evidence “must show that the[ ] hypothetical alternative districts would have better satisfied the legislature’s other nonracial political goals as well as traditional nonracial districting principles” before a Shaw claim can be stated. Cromartie II, 532 U.S. at 249, 121 S.Ct. 1452 (emphasis supplied). In short, while we accept for purposes of this motion plaintiffs’ allegation that race impacted the drawing of CD 51, plaintiffs have failed to raise a triable issue regarding the “neglect” of traditional districting principles that is a “necessary” element of their Shaw claim. Vera, 517 U.S. at 962, 116 S.Ct. 1941. They have thus failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the district is unexplainable on grounds other than race. 2. Congressional District 28 (San Fernando Valley) Congressional District 28 is also a compact and contiguous district that does not deviate from the ideal size. As' with CD 51, plaintiffs have put forward no evidence that the reconfigured CD 28 departs from traditional districting principles. While plaintiffs have offered evidence that CD 28 was drawn with some consciousness of race, that alone is insufficient to support a Shaw claim. DeWitt, 856 F.Supp. at 1415 (concluding that the redistricting plan developed by Special Masters and approved by the California Supreme Court “is not racial gerrymandering, but rather a thoughtful and fair example of applying traditional redistricting principles, while being conscious of race.”). Plaintiffs allege that map-drawer Michael Berman moved Latino voters out of CD 28 so as to reduce the efforts his brother, the incumbent, would be required to make in order to defeat a potential primary challenge by a future Latino candidate. In particular, Michael Berman allegedly sought to limit the number of Latino voters in the district so that his brother would not have to leave his legislative activities in Washington, D.C., and travel to California frequently in order to ensure his re-election. We assume, for the purpose of this motion, that such was Michael Ber-man’s intent, and that the legislature as a whole adopted it. Additional evidence of a race-conscious motive in the drawing of district lines is found in a statement made by the Senate Redistricting Committee Chair, Sen. Don Perata, at a public hearing. In that statement, Sen. Perata offered his opinion that the representation of Latinos would be enhanced by the movement of some Latinos from the district of Rep. Howard Berman, an “ardent supporter of Latino issues,” to the neighboring district of Rep. Brad Sherman, to “encourage Congressman Sherman ... -to take leadership on- issues of concern to the Latino community as Howard Berman has done for the past 30 years.” Plaintiffs argue that Sen. Perata’s statement, “by itself,” necessitates denying defendants’ summary judgment motion, as it “directly announces a singular, race-based motivation for drawing the map to split the Latino community between two congressional districts.” Read in context, Sen. Perata’s statement was a response to the concerns that had been raised by Latino advocacy groups about CD 28 during the course , of the redistricting process. It is essentially equivalent to the statement the ■ Supreme Court found insufficient to support a Shaw claim in Cromartie II. See 532 U.S. at 253, 121 S.Ct. 1452 (“We agree that one can read the statement about ‘racial •... balance’ ... to refer to the current congressional delegation’s racial balance. But even as so read, the phrase shows that the legislature considered race, along with other partisan and geographic considerations; and as so read it says little or nothing about whether race played a predominant role comparatively speaking”) (emphasis original). Moreover, even coupled with plaintiffs’ other evidence regarding intent, the statement is not sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether traditional districting principles were subordinated to race. Plaintiffs assert that the horseshoe/stake shape of the district supports an inference that race predominated, citing the fact that old CD 24 and 26, which CD 27 and 28 replaced, were essentially circular or oblong in configuration. The fact that CD 28 is surrounded on two sides by parts of CD 27, however, does not suggest out-of-the-ordinary districting. The district is relatively compact and contiguous; it does not have tentacles, appendages, land bridges, corridors, or wings. See Vera, 517 U.S. at 965, 972, 973-74, 116 S.Ct. 1941; Miller, 515 U.S. at 917, 115 S.Ct. 2475. It does not look like a snake, bird or other animal. See Cromartie II, 532 U.S. at 240, 243, 121 S.Ct. 1452; Vera, 517 U.S. at 973-74, 116 S.Ct. 1941. Indeed, the legislature drew another congressional district with approximately the samé shape that plaintiffs do not challenge. Additionally, CD 28 satisfied the legislature’s obligation to draw equipopulous districts. As discussed earlier, the mere use of race as a reason for a redistricting decision cannot lead to a Shaw violation where that reason is not the dominant and controlling rationale, so that the legislature’s redistricting is unexplainable on grounds other than race. See Cromartie II, 532 U.S. at 258, 121 S.Ct. 1452. Here, despite some evidence of race-consciousness, there is abundant and uncontested evidence in the record that traditional districting principles were followed in establishing CD 28, and that such principles were not subordinated to racial concerns. In this connection, the evidence in the record shows that one important reason for the new district lines was to respond to requests by residents of the southern San Fernando Valley (“the Valley”) to be included in the district, of Rep. Berman. Congressman Berman had represented the southern (and largely white) parts of the Valley for decades as a member of the California Assembly and in Congress. The Special Masters in 1991 adopted a plan that abandoned the historical district configurations in the Valley, and substantially altered the district that Rep. Berman had long represented, by removing liberal white neighborhoods in the southern Valley and replacing those areas with predominantly Latino neighborhoods in the northeastern part of the Valley. The 2001 redistricting restored the southern Valley communities of Sherman Oaks, North Hollywood, and Studio City to Rep. Berman’s district, and in exchange removed some of the Latino neighborhoods along its perimeter that had been added ten years earlier. The current redistricting plan thus modified the Special Masters’ Plan by reestablishing, in part, Rep. Berman’s traditional district. It did so, moreover, in conformity with traditional districting principles; the legislature kept intact the bulk of the Special Masters’ district, removed perimeter precincts in the north and west, and restored the southern tier of the district. In fact, CD 28 appears to conform to traditional dis-tricting principles to at least the same degree as the district created by the Special Masters and the alternative district proposed by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs challenge the proffered explanation for the lines of CD 28, noting that the original proposal for the district did not include the neighborhoods in the southern Valley that had been in Rep. Berman’s district prior to the adoption of the Special Masters’ Plan in 1991. It is undisputed, however, that legislative committees heard testimony from two homeowners’ associations in these areas that advocated placing Sherman Oaks within Rep. Berman’s district, and uniting the communities of Sherman Oaks and North Hollywood in a single district. Just as the map-drawers responded to MALDEF’s initial complaints about the district, by moving the core of the Latino communities back within its boundaries, so too it appears the legislature responded to the concerns expressed by residents in areas formerly represented by Rep. Berman. Plaintiffs contend that these communities could have been added to CD 28 without splitting Latino communities in the northern part of the district. As noted earlier, however, the fact that the legislature could have achieved its goal in a different way does not give rise to an inference that race predominated or that traditional districting criteria were subordinated to race. Cromartie II, 532 U.S. at 249, 121 S.Ct. 1452; see also id. at 256-57, 121 S.Ct. 1452 (“a showing that the legislature might have ‘swapped’ a handful of precincts out of a total of 154 precincts, involving a population of a few hundred out of a total population of about half a million, cannot significantly strengthen ap-pellees’ case.”). Defendants’ proffered explanation, in short, demonstrates that the district is explainable on a basis other than race. The crux of plaintiffs’ argument, and the crux of the debate surrounding CD 28 during the redistricting process, is the fact that the legislature’s plan reduced the percentage of Latinos in the district. Latino advocacy groups wanted another majority-Latino district created, while the legislature originally proposed creating two Latino influence districts. The legislature, as previously noted, had no obligation to maximize the number of majority-Latino districts drawn. See Shaw II, 517 U.S. at 913, 116 S.Ct. 1894; Miller, 515 U.S. at 924, 115 S.Ct. 2475. Cf. De Grandy, 512 U.S. at 1017. Similarly, it had no obligation to maximize the number of Latinos placed in CD 28. As drawn, a majority of the district’s population is Latino and very close to 50% of its voting age population is Latino. Accepting plaintiffs’ evidence as true, it cannot be said that it is more than the “modicum of evidence” the Court found insufficient in Cromartie II, 532 U.S. at 257, 121 S.Ct. 1452. Most importantly, it does not raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the legislature abandoned or subordinated traditional dis-tricting principles to racial considerations when it established CD 28. The legislature’s adherence to such principles is fatal to plaintiffs’ Shaw claim. D. Conclusion The two districts that plaintiffs challenge under Shaw are not districts that foster “political apartheid;” to the contrary, they are remarkably diverse multiracial and multi-ethnic districts. Thus, they are not districts that give rise to expressive or representational harms. Moreover, plaintiffs have failed to raise a material question of fact as to whether traditional districting principles were abandoned or subordinated to race, a necessary element of a Shaw claim. Accordingly, summary judgment is properly entered for defendants on plaintiffs’ Shaw claims. II. Plaintiffs’ Voting Rights Act Section 2 Claims (Non-Intentional) Plaintiffs also bring traditional statutory vote dilution claims regarding CD 28 and SD 27 under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. To establish a traditional claim under section 2, plaintiffs need prove only that the creation of the challenged district has the “effect” of diluting the electoral power of minority voters. Intent is not an element. Plaintiffs argue that in CD 28 and SD 27 the new boundary lines have the effect of preventing Latinos from electing candidates of choice. In both of the districts that plaintiffs challenge under this theory, Latinos constitute a plurality of the voting-age population. In both districts, substantial numbers of non-Latino voters have voted for Latino candidates — and Latino candidates have won elections in the areas in question with the assistance of white cross-over votes. Ultimately, we conclude that there is no material question of fact regarding the traditional § 2 claims: the record before us demonstrates beyond dispute that the districts as drawn by the legislature do not have the effect of denying Latino voters the ability to elect representatives of choice. A. Background Section 2 prohibits the adoption of any election practice, including the drawing of district lines, that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” It has been interpreted to bar the adoption of election districts that minimize or cancel out the voting power of minorities so that the minority group cannot elect representatives of choice. Allen v. Bd. of Elections, 393 U.S. 544, 555, 89 S.Ct. 817, 22 L.Ed.2d 1 (1969); De Grandy, 512 U.S. at 1012-13, 114 S.Ct. 2647. This section of the Voting Rights Act is particularly unusual among civil rights laws because it requires no showing of discriminatory intent; it was amended in 1982 so as to provide for an “effects test” only. Prior to 1980, vote dilution cases were generally adjudicated using an effects standard first adopted in White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755, 93 S.Ct. 2332, 37 L.Ed.2d 314 (1973), as refined and further developed by the lower courts, particularly in Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F.2d 1297 (1973) (en banc), aff'd. on other grounds sub. nom. East Carroll Parish School Bd. v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636, 96 S.Ct. 1083, 47 L.Ed.2d 296 (1976) (per curiam). In 1980, a splintered Supreme Court decided City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980). Although no single opinion garnered five votes, a majority of the Court agreed that plaintiffs in both constitutional and statutory vote dilution cases must prove, discriminatory intent. Because civil rights organizations and others argued that it would be exceedingly difficult to prove minority vote dilution claims under an intent test, Congress amended the Voting Rights Act to require only proof of discriminatory effects in order to establish liability under § 2. See Thomas M. Boyd and Steven J. Markman, The 1982 Amendments to the Voting Rights Act: A Legislative History, 40 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1347 (1983). The language of § 2 as amended does not give clear guidance to courts as to how to determine whether a voting practice results in the denial of a minority group’s ability to elect its representative of choice; the statute merely directs that courts examine the totality of the circumstances. In light of the vague statutory language, the Supreme Court gave structure to the § 2 inquiry in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986). In order to prevail on a vote dilution claim, the Gingles Court held, three “pre-conditions” must be met: First, the “minority group must be able to demonstrate that it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district.” Id. at 50, 106 S.Ct. 2752. That is, unless the minority group can establish that an effective majority-minority district can be created, a vote dilution claim is not cognizable because there is no minority voting power to dilute. Second, “the minority group must show that it is politically cohesive.” Id. at 51, 106 S.Ct. 2752. As the Court explained in Gingles, unless members of a minority group have shared political views, “it cannot be said that the selection of a[n] ... electoral structure thwarts distinctive minority group interests.” Id.. Third, “the minority must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it ... to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.” Id. Of course, if minority-preferred candidates actually win elections, then the minority is able to elect representatives of its choice. Gingles, like most of the voting rights cases to arise in the first two decades after the enactment of the Voting Rights Act, challenged the use of multi-member districts that effectively subordinated the electoral power of the minority voting population to that of the majority through the conduct of at-large elections in which it was impossible for a minority-preferred candidate to be elected. Although the three Gingles factors were devised in cases challenging multi-member districting, the Supreme Court held in Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25, 40-41, 113 S.Ct. 1075, 122 L.Ed.2d 388 (1993), that the Gingles analysis applies equally to vote dilution claims involving single-member districts. We therefore apply the Gingles test in this case. In Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 114 S.Ct. 2647, 129 L.Ed.2d 775 (1994), the Supreme Court further explained the method of analyzing cases that allege vote dilution through the gerrymandering of single-member districts. In De Grandy, the Court held that vote dilution under § 2 is not automatically established even if all three Gingles pre-conditions are established. Because the statute requires a court to examine the “totality of the circumstances,” the De Grandy Court held that although the Gingles factors are necessary to prove a § 2 violation, they are not sufficient: when the three Gingles preconditions are met, a court evaluating a § 2 claim must then assess the totality of the circumstances to determine if the “effects” test is met — that is, if minority voters’ political power is truly diluted. Id. at 1013, 114 S.Ct. 2647 (“[F]actfinders cannot rest uncritically on assumptions about the force of the Gingles factors in pointing to dilution.”); see Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski Cty. Special Sch. Dist., 56 F.3d 904, 911-12 (8th Cir.1995) (assuming satisfaction of the Gingles factors, but affirming a finding of no minority vote dilution based on the totality of the circumstances). With these legal principles in mind, we turn to plaintiffs’ traditional § 2 claims respecting CD 28 and SD 27. We resolve both on the basis of the absence of a necessary Gingles pre-condition, pre-condition three, and thus do not reach the totality of the circumstances test. B. Senate District 27 Senate District 27 is located in southeast Los Angeles County, and includes the communities of Downey, Paramount, Cer-ritos, Artesia, Hawaiian Gardens, Signal Hill, Lakewood, and Lynwood, as well as parts of Long Beach and South Gate. The seat is currently held by Sen. Betty Kar-nette, who was first elected in 1990. Plaintiffs do not dispute that Sen. Kar-nette was the Latino candidate of choice; although herself white, she received the majority of Latino support within the district during the 1990 primary election, in which there was no incumbent Senator. It is also undisputed that Sen. Karnette voted in accordance with the Senate Latino caucus 95% of the time in the 1997-98 session, and 85% in the 1998-99 session. Due to the limits on state legislative terms in California, Sen. Karnette will be unable to run for re-election in 2004. The essence of plaintiffs’ traditional § 2 claim regarding Senate District 27 is that the redistricting statute packs Latinos into neighboring Senate District 30, a majority-Latino district, and that the challenged district could and should have been drawn as an additional majority-Latino seat. Latinos constitute a plurality of the voting-age population (“VAP”) in SD 27: 40% of the VAP is Latino, 36% is white, 12% is Asian and 9% is black. In SD 30, Latinos constitute the overwhelming majority of the district: 76% of the total population and 71% of the VAP is Latino. Although it is undoubtedly true that the legislature could have moved some Latino voters from the Latino-dominated SD 30 to SD 27 in order to construct an additional majority-minority district, we conclude that the