Pope v. County of Albany (94 F. Supp. 3d 302, 2015)

MEMORANDUMÍ-DECISION and ORDER

LAWRENCE E. KAHN, District Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION.308

II. LEGAL STANDARD . CO o co

A. Voting Rights Act. CO o CO

B. Gingles Framework. CO l — O

III. FINDINGS OF FACT. T — (

A. Background. 1 — |

1. Parties. T — I

2. County Redistricting Process. T — i

3. Prior Section 2 Litigation.

a. 1991 Litigation. TH

b. 2003 Litigation (“Arbor Hill” Litigation). T-t

4. 2010 Census.

5. 2011 County Redistricting. 1 — i

a. The Commission. 1 — 1

b. Definition of Minority Used in Redistricting. I — i

c. Draft Maps. T — I

d. Public Involvement in Redistrieting Process. T““i

e. Local Law C. T“H

6. Alternative Plans. T-!

a. Arbor Hill Environmental Justice (“AHE J”) Plan T-I

b. Plaintiffs’ Illustrative Plans. l-I

7. City Redistricting Process. I-i

B. First Gingles Precondition: Compactness and Numerosity of Minority

Community . 1“i CO

C. Statistical Methods Used to Determine Voter Behavior. 1 — i CO

D. Second Gingles Precondition: Political Cohesion. CO CO

1. Expert Reports and Testimony. CO <70

2. Anecdotal Evidence. CO CO

E. Third Gingles Precondition: Racial Bloc Voting that Usually Defeats

Minority’s Preferred Candidate . H CO

1. Expert Reports and Testimony H CO

2. Additional Relevant Elections . CO CO

F. Totality of the Circumstances.325

1. History of Voting-Related Discrimination.325

2. Racially Polarized Voting.325

3. Dilution-Enhancing Voting Practices an d Procedures.325

4. Access to Slating Process.325

5. Effects of Past Discrimination..326

6. Racial Appeals in Campaigns .327

7. Past Election of Minority Group Members.327

8. Responsiveness to Minority Needs...327

G. Spoliation. 328

IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. IM CO

A. Expert Testimony. (M CO

B. Spoliation. Oí CO

C. Vote Dilution Claim. CO CO

1. Probative Elections. CO CO

2. Political Cohesion . CO CO

a. Statistical Evidence of Cohesion. CO CO

b. Anecdotal Evidence of Cohesion. CO CO

3. Racial Bloc Voting that Usually Defeats the Minority-Preferred

Candidate.:.

a. Racial Bloc Voting.

b. Minority-Preferred Candidate “Usually” Defeated.

4. Totality of the Circumstances.

a. History of Voting-Related Discrimination.

b. Racially Polarized Voting.

c. Dilution-Enhancing Voting Practices and Procedures .

d. Access to Slating Process.'..

e. Effects of Past Discrimination.

f. Racial Appeals in Campaigns.

g. Past Election of Minority Group Members.

h. Responsiveness to Minority Needs.

i. Tenuousness Underlying Redistricting Policy.

j. Effective MMDs..

k. Proportionality..

5. Conclusion.

V. REMEDY. rH U5 CO

A. Remedial Plan. i — i CO

B. Attorney’s Fees. i-H CO

VI.CONCLUSION. .352

I.INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Anne Pope, Wanda Willing-ham, Geraldine Bell, Samuel Coleman, Lee Pinckney, Vicente Alfonso, and Elaine Frazier (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) commenced this action against Defendants County of Albany (the “County”) and Albany County Board of Elections (collectively, “Defendants”), challenging the 2011 redistricting of the Albany County Legislature (“Legislature”) under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (‘VRA”), 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (“Section 2”). See Dkt. No. 254 (“Second Amended Complaint”). Plaintiffs allege that the VRA requires the creation of an additional majority-minority district (“MMD”) in the County Legislature following population shifts reflected in the 2010 Census.

This matter was tried at an eleven-day bench trial before the Court between November 6, 2014 and January 13, 2015. See generally Dkt. Nos. 406-16 (collectively, “Trial Transcript”); see also Dkt. No. 336. At issue in the trial was whether: (1) the County’s redistricting plan dilutes the voting strength of black voters under Section 2; (2) the County’s plan dilutes the voting strength of a combined minority population of black and Hispanic voters under Section 2 (“coalition claim”); and (3) Plaintiffs are entitled to an adverse inference based on Defendants’ spoliation of evidence. Prior to trial, the parties submitted a joint pre-trial stipulation. Dkt. No. 321 (“JPS”). In lieu of closing arguments, the parties submitted post-trial briefs, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Dkt. Nos. 421 (“Plaintiffs’ Trial Brief’); 422; 424-1 (“Defendants’ Trial Brief’). Both parties also filed Replies. Dkt. Nos. 425 (“Defendants’ Reply Brief’); 426 (“Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief’).

Based on the testimony at trial and evidence submitted, the Court finds that while laudable progress to address racial disparities in the County has been made, the County’s redistricting plan diluted the voting strength of black voters in Albany County in violation of the VRA. This conclusion renders it unnecessary for the Court to reach the issue of Plaintiffs’ coalition claim. The Court’s specific findings of fact and conclusions of law follow.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Voting Rights Act

The VRA was enacted “to help effectuate the Fifteenth Amendment’s guarantee that no citizen’s right to vote shall ‘be denied or abridged ... on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.’ ” Voinovich v. Quitter, 507 U.S. 146, 152, 113 S.Ct. 1149, 122 L.Ed.2d 500 (1993) (citing U.S. Constitution, Arndt. 15 and NAACP v. New York, 413 U.S. 345, 350, 93 S.Ct. 2591, 37 L.Ed.2d 648 (1973)). “Congress enacted Section 2 of the [VRA] to eliminate discrimination in voting present since the end of the Reconstruction period in the 1870’s.” Reed v. Town of Babylon, 914 F.Supp. 843, 861 (E.D.N.Y.1996). Section 2 provides that “[n]o voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” 52 U.S.C. § 10301(a). Section 2 is violated if:

based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.

Id. § 10301(b).

B. Gingles Framework

Courts assess the merits of Section 2 vote dilution claims under the three-step framework established in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986). To prevail on a claim under Section 2, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) the alleged minority group is sufficiently numerous and geographically compact to compose a majority of a single-member district; (2) members of the minority group are politically cohesive; and (3) white bloc voting is usually sufficient to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate. See generally id. at 30, 106 S.Ct. 2752; see also Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25, 40-41, 113 S.Ct. 1075, 122 L.Ed.2d 388 (1993) (holding that Gingles applies to single-member districting schemes). To prevail, a plaintiff must “prove each of these preconditions by a preponderance of the evidence.” Reed, 914 F.Supp. at 863 (citing Gingles, 478 U.S. at 50, 106 S.Ct. 2752).

Though Plaintiffs must satisfy the three Gingles preconditions in order to prevail on their claim, the preconditions alone “are not sufficient to prove a § 2 violation.” NAACP, Inc. v. City of Niagara Falls, N.Y., 65 F.3d 1002, 1019 (2d Cir.1995) (citing Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1011, 114 S.Ct. 2647, 129 L.Ed.2d 775 (1994)). Although it would be “a very unusual case” where a plaintiff establishes the Gingles factors and fails to establish a Section 2 violation, courts still must consider the totality of the circumstances — additional indicia that tend to show a pattern and history of discrimination and a need for redress. Id. at 1019 n. 21 (quoting Jenkins v. Red Clay Consol. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 4 F.3d 1103, 1135 (3d Cir.1993)). This inquiry focuses on the following factors as “typically relevant to a vote dilution inquiry:”

the history of voting-related discrimination in the State or political subdivision; the extent to which voting in the elections of the State or political subdivision is racially polarized; the extent to which the State or political subdivision has used voting practices or procedures that tend to enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group, such as unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, and prohibitions against bullet voting; the exclusion of members of the minority group from candidate slating processes; the extent to which minority group members bear the effects of past discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process; the use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns; and the extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction.

Goosby v. Town Bd. of Town of Hempstead, N.Y., 180 F.3d 476, 491 (2d Cir.1999) (“Goosby II”) (quoting Gingles, 478 U.S. at 44-45, 106 S.Ct. 2752). Additional relevant factors include:

evidence demonstrating that elected officials are unresponsive to the particularized needs of the members of the minority group and that the policy underlying the State’s or the political subdivision’s use of the contested practice or structure is tenuous.

Goosby II, 180 F.3d at 491-92 (quoting Gingles, 478 U.S. at 45, 106 S.Ct. 2752). These factors are “neither exclusive nor comprehensive.” Goosby II, 180 F.3d at 492. “[T]here is no requirement that any particular number of factors be proved, or that a majority of them point one way or the other.” Gingles, 478 U.S. at 45, 106 S.Ct. 2752 (quoting S.Rep. No. 97-417, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., 29 (1982), 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 177, 207). Taking a “functional view of the process,” the most important factors are the extent to which (1) minority group members have been elected in the jurisdiction, and (2) voting is racially polarized. Gingles, 478 U.S. at 48 n. 15, 106 S.Ct. 2752 (citing S.Rep. No. 97-417, at 28-29). If these two factors are present, other factors “are supportive of, but not essential to, a minority voter’s claim.” Id. (emphasis in original).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT

A. Background

1.Parties

Plaintiffs are black and Hispanic voters and residents of Albany County, New York. See Trial Tr. at 98, 226-27, 742-43, 1164; Dkt. No. 26 (“Willingham Declaration”) at 1; see also Second Am. Compl. Defendant County of Albany is a muniei-pality organized pursuant to the laws of the State of New York, and its business office is located at 112 State Street, Albany, New York, which is located within the County of Albany. Second Am. Compl. ¶ 15; Dkt. No. 258 (“Answer”) ¶ 6. Defendant Albany County Board of Elections is vested with the authority and power to conduct county elections for the offices of members of the Albany County Legislature. Second Am. Compl. ¶ 16; Answer ¶ 6.

2.County Redistricting Process

Albany County is governed by a Legislature (the “Legislature”), which is divided into thirty-nine single-member districts. ALBANY, N.Y., LOCAL LAW NO. 2 §§ 201, 206 (2004) (original version at Local Law No. 8 (1993)) (“County Charter”); see also JPS ¶ 3. The Legislature holds an election every four years, County Charter § 202, with the next general election to occur in November 2015, see id. Following each federal census, the Legislature must appoint a reapportionment commission (“Redistricting Commission” or “Commission”) to evaluate the County’s legislative districts and propose new districts if necessary based on population changes. Id. § 207; see also Trial Tr. at 578. The Commission makes recommendations to the Legislature in the form of a proposed local law. See County Charter § 207. The Legislature then votes whether to adopt the proposed law and send it to the County Executive for signature into law. See JPS ¶ 3.

3.Prior Section 2 Litigation

a. 1991 Litigation

Following the 1990 census, the County drew district maps containing only one MMD. Minority voters alleged a violation of Section 2, arguing that the data reflected in the census warranted creating three MMDs. Ex. P20 (“1991 Consent Decree”) ¶¶ 10-15, 20. Pursuant to the 1991 Consent Decree, the County created a new redistricting plan containing three MMDs. JPS ¶ 1. As part of the Consent Decree, the County admitted that “[t]he black population of Albany County is characterized by sufficient numerosity, political cohesion, and geographic concentration within particular areas of the county such that” three MMDs were warranted. Id. ¶ 17. The plan included “three majority Black and Hispanic legislative districts.” Id. ¶ 24.

b. 2003 Litigation (“Arbor Hill” Litigation)

Following the 2000 Census, the County adopted a redistricting plan that maintained three MMDs and included only black voters in its definition of “minority.” Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. Cnty. of Albany, No. 03-cv-502, 2003 WL 21524820, at *1-2 (N.D.N.Y. July 7, 2003) (“Arbor Hill I ”), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. Cnty. of Albany, 281 F.Supp.2d 436 (N.D.N.Y.2003) (“Arbor Hill II”). In 2003, minority voters again brought suit, alleging that the increase in the minority population warranted four MMDs consisting of black and Hispanic voters. Id. U.S. Magistrate Judge David R. Homer found that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the merits of their case and therefore granted a preliminary injunction; the District Court adopted Judge Homer’s Report-Recommendation in its entirety. See generally id.

Following the 2003 Litigation, the County created a redistricting plan with four MMDs pursuant to a consent decree. JPS ¶¶ 2, 20. This redistricting plan, Local Law E, included in its definition of minority both black and Hispanic voters. See Ex. D103 (“Plaintiffs’ 2003 Objections”) at 6. Local Law E included the following population numbers in its MMDs:

Table 1: Minority Voting Age Population (“VAP”) Figures in Local

Law E

District DOJ Black VAP Hispanic VAP Combined VAP

2 49.16% 8.47% 57.63%

3 51.16% 5.16% 56.37%

4 54.16% 5.27% 59.43%

5 52.3% 6.10% 58.4%

Id.

Magistrate Judge Homer issued a Report-Recommendation approving of Local Law E. Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. Cnty. of Albany, No. 03-CV-502, 2003 WL 22139798, at *3, 9 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2003) (“Arbor Hill III ”) report and recommendation adopted, 289 F.Supp.2d 269 (N.D.N.Y.2003) (“Arbor Hill IV”) rev’d on other grounds Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens v. Cnty. of Albany, 357 F.3d 260 (2d Cir.2004) (“Arbor Hill V”).

The 2008 plaintiffs objected to Magistrate Judge Homer’s decision, arguing that the County’s remedial plan divided communities of interest, that the minority population figures in Local Law E were not high enough to create effective MMDs, and that MMDs require more than a “bare majority” minority population in order to combat low voter turnout and allow minority voters to elect their candidates of choice. Pis.’ 2003 Objs. at 2, 3. The 2003 plaintiffs also objected to the inclusion of Hispanic voters in calculating population figures for effective MMDs. Id. at 18 n. 13. They proposed the following alternative remedial plan:

Table 2: Minority Voting Age Population (“VAP”) Figures in Plaintiffs’ Alternative Remedial Plan

District DOJ Black VAP Hispanic VAP Combined VAP

2 54.03% 7.88% 61.91%

3 53.91% 6.12% 60.03%

4 51.22% 4.34% 55.56%

5 57.72% 6.10% 63.82%

Id. at 6-7. The district court rejected the plaintiffs’ objections and adopted the Report-Recommendation in its entirety. See generally Arbor Hill IV, 289 F.Supp.2d at 277.

At trial in the instant case, several witnesses who had been involved in the 2003 Litigation discussed the plaintiffs’ objections. One of Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, Aaron Mair (“Mair”) testified that in 2003, plaintiffs primarily objected to the County’s methods. See Trial Tr. at 1399-1400. Plaintiffs’ other expert, Dr. Baodong Liu, clarified that in 2003, he had stated that plaintiffs’ plan was preferable, but he did not think that Local Law E would preclude minorities from electing their candidates of choice. See id. at 297-98. Anne Pope (“Pope”), however, testified that it would not be unreasonable for the County to “try to achieve ideal districts.” See id. at 499-500.

k- 2010 Census

The 2010 census figures for New York State were released on March 24, 2011. JPS ¶ 8. Relevant populations for purposes of this case include non-Hispanic single-race black (“single-race black”), non-Hispanic DOJ black (“DOJ black”), Hispanic, and non-Hispanic white (“white”). Single-race black refers to individuals who select only “Black or African American” in the racial group category on the census, and do not also select Hispanic or any other race. Trial Tr. at 855. DOJ black refers to “all non-Hispanic individuals who, in the Census, identified themselves as Black only, or as Black and white, but not non-Hispanic persons who identified themselves as Black and another minority race.” JPS ¶ 24 (citation omitted).

The 2010 census showed that Albany County had a population of 304,204, with a voting age population (“VAP”) of 243,573. Id. ¶¶ 4, 20. The County’s single-race black population was 36,396, or 12% of the County’s total population, and the single-race black VAP was 26,196. Id. ¶ 21. The County’s DOJ black population was 39,087, or 12.9% of the County’s total population, and the DOJ black VAP was 27,248, or 11.2% of the County’s VAP. Id. ¶ 22. The County’s non-Hispanic white population was 231,152 — 76% of the total population; the non-Hispanic white VAP was 192,347— 79% of the total VAP. See Ex. P63 (“Albany Census Data”).

Since 2000, the single-race black population in the County has increased by 15.5%. Ex. P62 (“Cooper Declaration”) at 3; see also Trial Tr. at 863. “During the same period, the non-Hispanic white population of the [County] decreased by 4.1%,” declining from 81.79% of the County’s total population in 2000 to 76% in 2010. Cooper Decl. at 3-4; see also Trial Tr. at 862-63. Much of the growth in the minority population of Albany County has occurred in the City of Albany (the “City”), specifically in the eastern part of the City. See Trial Tr. at 868-69, 1085, 1404-06, 1410-11; see also Cooper Decl. ¶ 6 (noting that “71.9% of the County’s non-Hispanic blacks ... reside ... within the City of Albany.”). The non-Hispanic black population makes up 32% of the City’s total population and 27% of the City’s VAP. See Albany Census Data. Within the City, the South End, Arbor Hill, West Hill, and North Albany are predominantly minority neighborhoods. See Trial Tr. at 7-8, 455.

5. 2011 County Redistricting

a. The Commission

On January 10, 2011, the Legislature appointed a Redistricting Commission pursuant to the County Charter. JPS ¶ 5. Members of the Commission were chosen by then-Chairman of the Legislature Daniel McCoy (“McCoy”), Trial Tr. at 625-26, and included Democratic County Legislator and Majority Whip Shawn Morse (“Morse”), the Commission’s chair; Joseph Rabito (“Rabito”); Thomas Nardacci (“Nardacci”); Democratic Legislator Norma Chapman (“Chapman”); Democratic Legislator Thomas Cotrofeld (“Cotrofeld”); Republican Legislator Christine Benedict (“Benedict”); and Peter Kermani (“Ker-mani”). See Ex. P31; see also Trial Tr. at 579. Democratic County Legislator Lucille McKnight (“McKnight”) later replaced Rabito on the Commission, after Rabito resigned. Trial Tr. at 579-80; see also Exs. P108, P146.

Under New York State Election Law, the primary election following the 2010 census was scheduled for September 13, 2011. See N.Y. Eleo Law § 8-100(l)(a). The first day on which candidates could designate petitions was June 7, 2011. Dkt. Nos. 82, 84, 85 (collectively, “PI Hearing Transcript”) at 277. The Commission intended to have a redistricting plan approved by June 6, 2011, to allow time for the petitioning process. See Ex. P51 ¶ 5.

John Merrill (“Merrill”) was hired to assist the Commission in drawing district maps. See Trial Tr. at 1189-90; Ex. P32. Merrill is a former County employee who had worked for the County for over thirty years, including in the planning department. See Trial Tr. at 1184-85. Merrill had previously created district maps for the County following the 2003 Litigation. Id. at 1185-86. Thomas Scarff (“Searff”), a policy analyst for McCoy at the time, served as the Commission’s secretary and took notes at each of the Commission’s meetings. Id. at 1355. Around March 2011, Thomas Marcelle (“Marcelle”), current County Attorney and then-counsel to the Republican Minority in the Legislature, was asked to serve as counsel to the Commission. See id. at 1230, 1262. Marcelle had previously been involved in the 2003 Litigation. See Dkt. No. 157 at 13.

The Commission held its first meeting on February 24, 2011. JPS ¶ 6. At that meeting, Morse stated that the Commission should conduct itself in an “open and transparent manner,” Ex. P3 at 1, and that the County was required to design a plan that complied with the VRA, Trial Tr. at 1302. Following the release of the census data on March 24, 2011, Merrill began working on draft maps, Ex. P51 ¶¶ 8-9, and shared preliminary draft maps with Morse, see Exs. P128, P155, P156. The Commission held six public hearings throughout the County between March 24 and April 23, 2011, including one in an MMD. See JPS ¶¶ 7-13; Exs. P4 through P9; see also Trial Tr. at 1326. Not every Commissioner attended every hearing. See Exs. PI through P9.

b. Definition of Minority Used in Redistricting

During the redistricting process, Merrill reviewed Magistrate Judge Homer’s July 7, 2003, Report-Recommendation. See Exs. P51 ¶ 12; P105; see also Ex. P107. At the time, Merrill understood the court’s definition of minority to include those who identified as: (1) non-Hispanic black; (2) non-Hispanic, two or more races; and (3) Hispanic or Latino. Ex. P51 ¶ 12; see also Trial Tr. at 1193-94. However, Merrill did not include the Hispanic population in his definition of minority when drawing maps for the Commission. See Trial Tr. at 1203; see also Ex. P315 (“Merrill Deposition”) at 185-86.

Merrill initially stated that when he drew the district maps, he used single-race black as the relevant minority population for drawing MMDs. See Merrill Dep. at 176-77; 200-201. Single-race black is generally considered a very narrow definition of black voters, and therefore is not often used in redistricting. Trial Tr. at 858. Plaintiffs’ expert William Cooper (“Cooper”) testified that after seeing Merrill’s report, “it appears that he is using a much more restrictive definition!:] ... single-race non-Hispanic black.” Id. at 896. Consequently, the Court finds the Commission’s draft maps and final plan used the restrictive, single-race black definition of minority.

The Commission never discussed as a group which definition of minority would be used to create MMDs. See Ex. P310 at 202-04; see also Trial Tr. at 723-24. When one commissioner inquired into the definition being used, she was told that MMDs would be drawn using a definition of minority that included mixed-race black and Hispanic individuals. See Pill; Trial Tr. 726-27.

When members of the public inquired into the definition of minority being used to draw MMDs, they were told that the Commission had used combined mixed-race black and Hispanic population figures. See Ex. P10; see also Trial Tr. at 600-01, 1248, 1403. The Commission eventually informed the public at the May 23 hearing that it had not included Hispanic or mixed-race black individuals in calculating the minority population for MMDs. See Trial Tr. at 729.

c.Draft Maps

In drawing draft maps for the County, Merrill took a number of factors into consideration, including compactness, contiguity, municipal boundaries, keeping together communities of interest, population increases in suburban areas of the County, protection of incumbents, and the 2003 plaintiffs’ objections to the prior remedial plan. See generally Ex. P51. The record indicates that incumbency protection was an important priority for the Commission. See id. ¶¶ 10, 13; see also Exs. P148, P152. However, most commissioners were generally uninvolved in the mapmaking process. See, e.g., Trial Tr. at 582-84, 594-95. The Commission never met to discuss the number of MMDs or the definition of minority to be used in creating them. Id. at 582-84.

Merrill attempted to create a fifth MMD using the single-race black definition of minority, but was ultimately unsuccessful. See Ex. P51 ¶ 15. Merrill indicated the he could not “guarantee that someone won’t come up with a different solution, but [he had not] seen it yet and [was] open to suggestions.” Id. Morse recalled Merrill stating that he was able to create a fifth MMD, but was not satisfied with it because of its shape, and the fact that the minority population was “less than 60 percent.” Ex. P314 (“Morse Deposition”) at 125. At a caucus meeting on May 23, 2011, Merrill told the caucus that the data showed that a fifth MMD was possible, but that he was told to create only four MMDs. Trial Tr. at 728-29.

d.Public Involvement in Redistricting Process

Though there were public hearings about redistricting, the Commission did not plan to give the public a draft plan due to time constraints. See Ex. P9. At the April 23 meeting, Pope stated that she believed the process was moving too fast and that the community was not being given enough information about the redistricting process. Ex. P9; Trial Tr. at 234-35. She also raised concerns about the lack of a fifth MMD at both the April 23 and May 17, 2011, hearings. Trial Tr. at 234, 241; see also Ex. P9. At the April 23 hearing, the Commission told Pope it would consider a fifth MMD. Ex. P9; see also Trial Tr. at 240. However, McKnight testified that the Commission never did so. See Trial Tr. at 591. Pope attempted to get additional information about the redistricting process outside of these hearings, but was unable to obtain any farther information. Id. at 238-40. At a later public hearing, Pope again requested more information about the redistricting process, but never received any. Id. at 240. At the hearing on May 17, 2011, the Commission informed Pope and the public that a fifth MMD would not be possible given the census figures. See id. at 241. No further explanation was provided to the public or to certain commissioners about any work or consideration that went into creating a fifth MMD. See Ex. P109; Trial Tr. at 595.

e.Local Law C '

On May 6, 2011, the Commission held a public hearing at which the commissioners voted to send a recommended redistricting plan to the Legislature. Id. ¶ 14. This was the first time that a proposed map had been presented to the public. See Exs. PB04 (“May 6 Hearing Transcript”) at 18-19; P10. At this hearing, the Commission informed the public that it was only able to create four MMDs using the definition of minority from Magistrate Judge Homer’s opinion, and explicitly stated that the Commission included in its definition of minority both Hispanic and mixed-race black individuals. See May 6 Hrg. Tr. at 4-5. At the end of the hearing, the Commission voted unanimously to send the plan to the Legislature. See id. at 36-37.

The plan sent to the Legislature became known as Local Law C. JPS ¶ 14. The Legislature held a public comment period regarding Local Law C on May 9, 2011, id. ¶ 15, and additional public hearings on May 17, May 19, and May 23, 2011, id. ¶¶ 16-18. Though proposed Local Law C was released to the public, it was released only in PDF form. See Ex. P12. Block equivalency files — which are required to analyze a redistricting plan in detail — were not released before Local Law C was approved by the Legislature. See id.; Ex. P164.

At the May 9 hearing, several community members, including Clifton Dixon, Mair, and Pope expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of community involvement during the redistricting process. See generally Exs. P12 through P15; Trial Tr. at 607. Following this hearing, Mair circulated a report with the population demographics from proposed Local Law C, and stated that he believed the plan showed evidence of “packing” minority voters into four MMDs. See Ex. P150; Trial Tr. at 1449.

At the May 17 public hearing, Pope reiterated her request that the Commission provide the data for proposed Local Law C and explain its methodology. See Ex. P16; Trial Tr. at 449-50. She stated that the minority community “would be looking for at least one additional [MMD].” Ex. P16 at 6. Carlos Gonzalez similarly stated at the same meeting that he believed the MMDs provided by the Commission were “not representative of [his] rights.” Id. at 8. Mair stated at this hearing that he believed that proposed Local Law C packed minorities into four MMDs, see id. at 17-18, and that he would draw and submit a new district map, id. at 33-34.

On May 22,. 2011, Mair distributed a draft plan to several individuals, including many County legislators. Ex. P138. At the hearing on May 23, 2011, Pope and County Legislator Gordon urged legislators to vote against Local Law C, see Ex. P305 at 57-58, 80, and McKnight suggested that the Legislature use Mair’s plan as a starting point to draw new districts, id. at 83-84.

The Legislature voted in favor of Local Law C. JPS ¶ 18. Following the Legislature’s vote, many community members, including McKnight; Debra Brown Johnson, President of the Albany NAACP; and mi-merous constituents, urged then-County Executive Michael Breslin (“Breslin”) to veto Local Law C. See generally Exs. P19, P61, P120; Trial Tr. at 607-09.

On June 6, 2011, Breslin signed Local Law C into law. JPS ¶ 19. Local Law C included four MMDs, in Districts 1-4, see id. 1124-25, with DOJ black voting-age populations of 59.16% in District 1; 55.39% in District 2; 61.75% in District 3; and 55.09% in District 4, id. ¶ 25. The population of districts under Local Law C have a maximum population deviation of 9.81%, a “minor deviation.” See Ex. D226 at Ex. D.

6. Alternative Plans

a. Arbor Hill Environmental Justice (“AHEJ”) Plan

The plan distributed by Mair on May 22 became known as the AHEJ Plan. The AHEJ Plan created five MMDs with DOJ black voting-age populations of 52.17% in District 1; 52.66% in District 2; 52.67% in District 3; 50.44% in District 4; , and 51.56% in District 6. JPS ¶ 27. The AHEJ Plan was created in accordance with accepted principles of redistricting, including low variance in the population numbers for each district, avoiding conflicts between incumbents, and keeping neighborhoods and towns together. See Trial Tr. at 1463-65. The districts’ in the AHEJ Plan have a total population deviation of 3.49%. See Ex. P67. The Commission did not consider the AHEJ Plan. See Ex. P313 at 145-46; see also Trial Tr. at 1352.

b. Plaintiffs’ Illustrative Plans

Plaintiffs created several illustrative plans to show that it is possible to create five MMDs based, on the 2010 census figures. Plaintiffs’ Illustrative Plans 1 and 3 both create five MMDs using either DOJ black or DOJ black plus Hispanic as the relevant minority population. See Ex. P69; JPS ¶¶ 29-30. Plaintiffs demonstrate that there are other ways to create five MMDs in Albany County. See Trial Tr. at 906, 1465-66. Cooper testified that using the 2010 census data, it was possible to create five MMDs with DOJ black populations of at least fifty-four percent each. Id. at 963-64. Cooper also believes that it is possible to draw five MMDs using the more restrictive, single-race black definition of minority. See id. at 897. In creating Plaintiffs’ illustrative plans, Cooper took into consideration traditional redistricting principles including compactness, contiguity, population deviations, incumbency protection, and keeping neighborhoods and former election districts together. Id. at 897-98.

7. City Redistricting Process

The City’s 2012 redistricting process was far more transparent than its County counterpart. The City’s redistricting commission held numerous meetings in minority neighborhoods. See Trial Tr. at 751-52. The City commission provided multiple draft maps to the public via its website, see id. at 125, and received feedback from the public on these maps, see id. at 754-55. The definition of minority that the commission used to create MMDs was disclosed on the draft maps and on the commission’s website. Id. at 129. In addition to the draft maps released to the public, the City commissioners discussed numerous other possible maps, see id. at 753-54, and reviewed and discussed the census data, see id. at 126-27.

B. First Gingles Precondition: Compactness and Numerosity of Minority Community

In a Memorandum-Decision and Order dated January 28, 2014, the Court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs on the first Gingles precondition as to the black population in Albany County. See generally Dkt. No. 253 (“Summary Judgment Order”). The Court found that “the black community in the County of Albany is sufficiently large and geographically compact to form five majority-minority districts.” Id. at 31.

C. Statistical Methods Used to Determine Voter Behavior

Plaintiffs presented statistical evidence to support their claim of vote dilution. As this analysis is relevant to both the second and third Gingles preconditions, the Court will discuss the statistical methods used before proceeding to more detailed findings of the results as they relate to each precondition.

Plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Baodong Liu (“Dr. Liu”) analyzed forty-six bi-racial elections in Albany County between 1991 and 2011. See generally Ex. P99. Bi-racial elections are those “involving both white [and] black candidates.” Ex. P82 at 3. In order to determine whether an election exhibited racially polarized voting, or bloc voting, Dr. Liu engaged in a multi-step analysis. First, he “look[ed] at [whether] a minority group ... preferred] a particular candidate”; he then “analyze[d] whether the same candidate receive[d] the same level [of] support from the white majority”; if the levels of support differed, he analyzed whether the level of disparity in voter preferences revealed racial bloc voting. Trial Tr. at 265-66. Dr. Liu also testified that the minority-preferred candidate is not necessarily the minority candidate, id. at 266, and that racial bloc voting can exist even in an election where a minority candidate wins, id. at 266-67. Dr. Liu based his analysis on DOJ black voting trends. See id. at 264.

Thirty-four of the elections Dr. Liu analyzed were single-member district elections, that is, elections in which voters can only vote for one candidate. See generally Ex. P99; see also Trial Tr. at 263. Of these, nine were endogenous elections. Elections are referred to as endogenous when they “occur[ ] in the jurisdiction at issue and for the office at issue.” Rodriguez v. Pataki 308 F.Supp.2d 346, 389 (S.D.N.Y.) aff'd, 543 U.S. 997, 125 S.Ct. 627, 160 L.Ed.2d 454 (2004). The endogenous elections for the purpose of this trial are County Legislature elections. All other elections are referred to as exogenous elections. To analyze single-member district elections, Dr. Liu used the Ecological Inference (“El”) method. Trial Tr. at 259; see also Ex. P99.

Dr. Liu also analyzed twelve multi-mem-ber district elections. See generally Ex. P99. Multi-member elections are those in which voters can vote for multiple candidates. See Trial Tr. at 263, 281-82. To analyze multi-member elections, Dr. Liu used homogenous precinct analysis, which is the only way to analyze racial bloc voting in this type of election. Id. at 262-63. For multi-member elections, Dr. Liu only analyzed the first-place winner of elections because “the first-place winner would receive significant support ... and then [one can compare] whether this first-place winner is indeed a preferred candidate of one racial group or another.” Id. at 283-84. Dr. Liu explained that this method is well-accepted in political science, and is the “only method [by which] one can draw reasonable and [valuable] conclusion^] about a multi-member” district election. Id. at 284.

Both ecological inference and homogenous precinct analysis have been accepted by courts in Section 2 cases. See, e.g., Rodriguez, 308 F.Supp.2d at 388 (accepting ecological inference analysis); United States v. Vill. of Port Chester, 704 F.Supp.2d 411, 441 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (same); see also Large v. Fremont Cnty., Wyo., 709 F.Supp.2d 1176, 1193 (D.Wyo.2010) (noting that homogenous precinct analysis was accepted by the Supreme Court in Gingles). The Court also finds that these methods are well-accepted in political science and therefore accepts Dr. Liu’s statistical methods.

However, Dr. Liu analyzed several elections that the Court finds not probative of voting patterns, and therefore excludes them from the present analysis. The first is the 2011 County Legislature District 6 primary. In this election, the minority candidate dropped out of the race before Election Day. See Trial Tr. at 271-72; Exs. P91 at 10; D6. Dr. Liu noted that this election skews his findings, Ex. P91 at 10, and Defendants similarly argue that it is uninformative, see Defs.’ Tr. Br. at 62-63. Consequently, the Court finds that this election is not probative of voting patterns. In addition, the 2005 City Common Council Ward 7 and 8 primary elections were Republican primary elections in which only forty-three and seventy-five votes were cast, respectively. See Trial Tr. at 323; see also Ex. D19 at 1. With so few votes, the Court will not rely on these elections to extrapolate larger patterns of voting. Therefore, the Court will discuss Dr. Liu’s single-member district election findings with respect to thirty-one elections, rather than thirty-four, and his findings about County Legislature elections with respect to the eight remaining relevant elections.

D. Second Gingles Precondition: Political Cohesion

1. Expert Reports and Testimony

Dr. Liu’s analysis shows that in twenty-seven of thirty-one (87%) single-member district elections, a majority of black voters supported the minority candidate. See Ex. P99, Table 3. In eighteen of these elections (58%), black voter support for the minority candidate exceeded seventy percent. See id. The four elections where black voters did not support the minority candidate were general elections in which the black-preferred candidate had already been defeated in the primary. See id. In the sixteen single-member district primary elections Dr. Liu analyzed, black voters preferred the minority candidate in every election. See id. Similarly, black voters supported a minority candidate in seven of eight (87%) relevant County Legislature elections. See id., Table 6. In the one County Legislature election where black voters did not support the minority candidate, the black-preferred candidate had already been defeated in the primary. See id. Dr. Liu also analyzed twelve bi-racial elections in multi-member districts and found that in every election, a black candidate was the first preference in black districts. See Ex. P91 at 13. Based on his findings, Dr. Liu concluded “that African American voters [in Albany County] are ‘politically cohesive’ in that they have overwhelmingly preferred African American candidates as their choices in biracial or multiracial elections involving black and white candidates.” Ex. P91 at 6-7; see also Trial Tr. at 269.

2. Anecdotal Evidence

In the past two VRA lawsuits involving Albany County, the courts found that the black community in the County was politically cohesive. See 1991 Consent Decree ¶ 17; see also Arbor Hill II, 281 F.Supp.2d at 448. In addition, Pope and McKnight both testified that based on their experiences as members of, and working with, the black community in Albany County, they believed the black community to be politically cohesive. Trial Tr. at 491; 617-18. Evidence shows that leaders in the black community have generally supported black candidates. See, e.g., id. at 129-30, 136, 200, 615. Several witnesses similarly testified that individual members of the black community in Albany County tend to support the same candidates in elections, see id. at 28, 132, 462, 1573-75, and that the black community in the County unites behind issues such as housing discrimination, education, policing, jobs, voting rights, and health issues, id. at 137-38.

E. Third Gingles Precondition: Racial Bloc Voting that Usually Defeats Minority’s Preferred Candidate

The third Gingles precondition is a highly fact-specific inquiry, and involves an examination of elections in the political subdivision at issue and their relative probative values. Though discussed in greater detail in the Court’s Conclusions of Law, infra, the Court notes here the elections that are most probative in this case. Because the majority of voters in Albany County, and especially in the City, are Democrats, see Trial Tr. at 1696-97, primary elections are far more probative than general elections of racial voting patterns in this case. Similarly, the Court will accord less weight to general elections where the minority-preferred candidate was defeated in the primary. The Court will afford more weight to County Legislature and County-wide elections than to other elections taking place in subsets of the County. The Court will also weigh more heavily the results of more recent elections, and elections showing minority-preferred candidate success outside of MMDs.

1. Expert Reports and Testimony

Of the forty-three relevant elections Dr. Liu analyzed, twenty-seven (63%) showed racial bloc voting. See Exs. P91, Table 2; P99, Table 3. The results show racial bloc voting in eleven of twelve — or 91.67%— exogenous, multi-member, bi-racial elections, Ex. P91 at 13; Trial Tr. at 282, and in sixteen (52%) of the thirty-one relevant single-member elections analyzed, see Ex. P99, Table 3. In the sixteen relevant single-member primary elections, twelve (75%) exhibited racial bloc voting. See id. This percentage was consistent even when considering only primary elections since 2004. See id. (showing bloc voting in nine of twelve primary elections since 2004). In County Legislature elections, Dr. Liu found racial bloc voting in six of eight (75%) relevant elections, and five of seven (71%) elections since 2004. See id., Table 6.

Defendants argue that the 2007 County Legislative District 4 primary does not show racial bloc voting because there were three candidates in the election, and Dr. Liu’s analysis combined black support for the two black candidates in his results. See Defs.’ Reply Br. at 32. Dr. Liu’s analysis shows that in this election, 76.51% of black voters supported one of the minority candidates and only 23.56% of white voters supported one of the minority candidates. Ex. P99, Table 3. Even though the analysis combines support for the two black candidates, this election still demonstrates racial bloc voting. Because there were only three candidates in this election, Ex. D15 at 4, Dr. Liu’s results show strong support (76%) of white voters for the one white candidate, and much lower support for that candidate from black voters (23.5%). Even if black voters voted for one of the two black candidates, this election still indicates that black and white voters preferred different candidates in this election, by wide margins, and therefore racial bloc voting was present.

Dr. Liu’s report showed no racial bloc voting in fifteen single-member district elections and one multi-member district election. See Trial Tr. at 275-76; Exs. P91, Table 2; P99, Table 3. For these elections, Dr. Liu analyzed whether “special circumstances” were present. See Ex. P91 at 7. Two special circumstances Dr. Liu investigated were incumbency and appointment. Dr. Liu explained at trial that incumbents enjoy advantages over non-incumbents, including name recognition, resources, and access to constituents, and that incumbency following an appointment can be particularly helpful to candidates in their subsequent elections. Trial Tr. at 280-81. This is “widely accepted” in political science. See id. at 280. Dr. Liu found that among the fifteen relevant single-member elections where racial bloc voting was not found, ten involved candidates who were incumbents, some of whom had been appointed. See Exs. P99, Table 4; P91, Table 5.

Dr. Liu’s analysis of thirty-one single-member elections in the County shows that there was a black-preferred candidate in twenty-seven elections. In the other four elections, the black-preferred candidate had been defeated in the primary. Black-preferred candidates were defeated in fourteen of these elections. Ex. P99, Table 3.

In single-member primary elections, Dr. Liu’s analysis shows that white bloc voting defeated black-preferred candidates (who were also the minority candidate in every election) in twelve of sixteen (75%) elections. See Ex. P99, Table 3. In the twelve primary elections where racial bloc voting was found, black-preferred candidates were defeated in every one. See id. This trend is consistent even when considering only primary elections since 2004. See id. (showing that black-preferred candidate was defeated by white bloc voting in nine of the twelve primary elections analyzed since 2004). Dr. Liu’s analysis also indicates that of the eight relevant County Legislature elections, white bloc voting defeated the black-preferred candidate in five (63%). See id., Table 6. In two elections, the black-preferred candidate was not defeated, and in one — a general election following a primary in which the black-preferred candidate was defeated— Dr. Liu’s analysis showed no black-preferred candidate. See id.

Dr. Liu analyzed seven county-wide elections: the 2010 County Surrogate Court Judge primary and general elections, the 2008 District Attorney general election, the 2004 District Attorney primary and general elections, and the 2003 and 2011 Coroner elections. In the 2010 Surrogate Court election, the black-preferred candidate was defeated in the primary election by white bloc voting. See Ex, P99, Table 3. The general election did not show bloc voting or the defeat of the minority-preferred candidate. Id. In all three District Attorney elections analyzed, Dr. Liu’s analysis showed no racial bloc voting; the minority candidate won all three elections. Id. The winning candidate in these elections was the same individual, David Soares (“Soares”), who is African American. See Trial Tr. at 129-30, 134. Both Coroner elections analyzed show racial bloc voting, but the report indicates that the minority-preferred candidate was not defeated. Ex. P91, Table 2. However, in the 2003 Coroner election, the successful minority candidate was an appointed incumbent, see id., Table 5, and in the 2011 election, the successful minority candidate ran unopposed, see Ex. D6 at 2.

The single-member exogenous elections in Plaintiffs’ expert report show slightly higher levels of success for minority-preferred candidates than did County Legislature elections. See generally Ex. P99. However, across all single-member exogenous 'primary elections, minority-preferred candidates were defeated at high rates. Of all exogenous primary elections Dr. Liu analyzed, minority-preferred candidates were defeated in seven of eleven (64%) elections. See id., Table 3. This percentage was consistent when looking only at exogenous primary elections since 2004, which show minority-preferred candidates defeated in five of eight elections. See id.

Dr. Liu concluded based on his analysis that “Blacks voted significantly] for Blacks as a group.... [However,] whites formed a voting block that voted differently. In this case [white voters] preferred white candidates in bi-racial elections and the existence of [racial bloc] voting indeed [typically] led to ... defeat of blacks [sic] preferred candidate.” Trial Tr. at 268-69; see also Ex. P91 at 4.

2. Additional Relevant Elections

In their Trial Brief, Defendants ask the Court to consider more than fifty elections that have occurred over the past decade that Dr. Liu did not analyze. See generally Defs.’ Tr. Br.; see also Pis.’ Rely Br. at Table A. However, many of these elections have little to no probative value for assessing whether minority-preferred candidates are usually defeated by white bloc voting. At least half of these elections took place in MMDs or majority-minority wards within the City. Other elections include those where a minority candidate ran unopposed. In four specific general elections that Defendants highlight — the 2005 Ward 7 and Ward 8 general elections, the 2007 County Legislative District 4 general election, and the 2009 City Treasurer general election — Dr. Liu’s analysis shows that in each case, the minority-preferred candidate was defeated in the primary election. See Ex. P99, Table 3. Defendants also ask the Court to consider the 2008 and 2012 general Presidential elections. However, in a heavily-Democratic area such as Albany County, general Presidential elections have minimal probative value. After careful consideration, the Court finds that these elections will not weigh substantially on the present analysis.

In addition, several elections Defendants mention were races between two minority candidates, or were multi-mem-ber district elections. In other elections Defendants proffer, the race of at least one candidate was not established in the record. These election results alone, without evidence of minority-preferred candidates, or ranking for multi-member district elections, provide little probative value for considering the third Gingles precondition.

However, the Court will consider the following elections that Dr. Liu did not analyze as relevant to the analysis of the third Gingles precondition:

• 2004 County Legislature District 10 election where Daniel McCoy, a white candidate, defeated Herbert. McLaughlin, a black candidate. See Trial Tr. at 1709-10;

• 2004 County Legislature District 13 election where Bill Clay, a black candidate, defeated a white candidate. See id. at 1710-11. Clay was initially appointed to the position in 2003 and won a special election in 2004, following the 2003 Litigation. Id. at 1761;

• 2012 State Committee member election where Corey Ellis, a black candidate, defeated a white incumbent. See D5 at 2; Trial Tr. at 1737;

• 2012 State Assembly 108th District election where Carolyn McLaughlin (“McLaughlin”), a black candidate, lost both the primary and general elections to a white candidate, John McDonald. See Exs. D4, D5; Trial Tr. at 1677. Testimony at trial indicates that McLaughlin was the minority-preferred candidate in the primary, as she won every minority ward. See Trial Tr. at 1142-43; see also Defs.’ Tr. Br. at 59. After losing the primary, McLaughlin remained in the race as the Working Families’ Party candidate. See Trial Tr. at 1066. She lost the general election by a wide margin. See id.;

• 2012 District Attorney primary where incumbent David Soares defeated a white candidate. See id. at 1736; and

• 2013 City Common Council election where Dorcey Applyrs, a black candidate, defeated Andres Rivera, a Hispanic candidate. See D3; Trial Tr. at 89, 1739. The record indicates that' members of the black community supported both candidates in this election. See Trial Tr. at 206, 545, 676.

F. Totality of the Circumstances

1. History of Voting-Related Discrimination

In previous Section 2 cases against Albany County, courts found a history of discrimination. See Arbor Hill II, 281 F.Supp.2d at 451-52. This is the third time the County has been sued for violating Section 2. Following a special election in 2004, voters brought a lawsuit against the County and County Board of Elections for absentee ballot abuses that heavily affected two MMDs. See Trial Tr. at 571-73; Ex. P26. The County settled and agreed to systemic reforms to remedy the challenged practices.- See Ex. P26.

2. Racially Polarized Voting

The Court’s findings on racial bloc voting are discussed in detail supra, and will not be repeated here. However, Defendants also offer evidence to discount the presence of racial bloc voting in Albany County. In the 2011 Legislative District 3 election, for example, the white candidate was a long-time incumbent and the black candidate had been convicted of a felony in 2003. Trial Tr. at 1175.

3.Dilution-Enhancing Voting Practices and Procedures

In recent years, the County has moved polling sites in several MMDs, causing transportation issues and discouragement for many minority voters. See Trial Tr. at 1095-98, 1169-70. The County informed voters of these changes by mail. Id. at 1097. Plaintiffs also note that the County does not offer Spanish language ballots. See id. at 1686. Matthew Clyne, who has been a member of the County Board of Elections since 2007, id. at 1664, testified that one of the polling locations to which Plaintiffs referred was moved only a block and a half from its previous location. See id. at 1690. He also stated that it was moved because of concerns that the prior location was inaccessible to non-residents of the building, and because turnout had been extremely low — only thirty to forty voters routinely voted there. See id. at 1690-91. These changes were also part of a larger effort to reduce the number of polling places in the City generally, to offset costs from the transition to mechanical voting systems. Id. at 1691.

A Access to Slating Process

Elections in Albany County are dominated by the County Democratic Party (“Democratic Party” or the “Party”). See Ex. P323 (“Gonzalez Deposition”) at 95. The Party’s endorsement confers a number of advantages on candidates, including infrastructure, manpower, and most often electoral success. See Trial Tr. 615, 1036-37. The Party has a Candidate Selection Committee, which hears presentations from potential candidates and makes a recommendation to the executive committee about whom to support. See id. at 1671. The process is open to anyone who wishes to present before the committee. See id. at 1671-72. The County Democratic party has endorsed at least nine minority candidates in County and City elections in the past decade, including Soares in his 2012 primary, Samuel Coleman in his 2011 County Legislature primary, and McLaughlin in her 2012 State Assembly primary. Id. at 1674-78.

However, several witnesses discussed the difficulties minority candidates still face when seeking party endorsements. For example, black candidates have been denied Party endorsements for reasons that seem to be mere pretense, see id. at 1045-49, 1062, 1064, and even when minority candidates are endorsed, there has not always been a concerted effort to support their candidacies, see id. at 1170. Despite these difficulties, however, some minority candidates have won hard-fought victories without the Party’s endorsement — Soares defeated a white incumbent in the 2004 District Attorney primary and McLaughlin won her 2009 race for Common Council President. See id. at 18,1045-49. Significantly, in September 2014 McLaughlin was elected as Chair of the County Democratic Party, id. at 1052, traditionally the most powerful position in the endorsement process.

5. Effects of Past Discrimination

In the Arbor Hill Litigation, the court noted that the 2000 census data showed that “minorities continue to lag behind the white majority in the County in virtually all socio-economic categories, including education, employment, housing, income and mobility.” Arbor Hill I, 2003 WL 21524820, at *12. The most recent census data indicates that this .trend continues. There remains a wide disparity between black and white individuals in Albany County on a wide swath of socioeconomic measures. Cooper testified that the American Community Survey (“ACS”) socioeconomic data from 2011-13 shows that, “across the board African-Americans ... lag behind non-Hispanic whites in virtually every single category in the American Community Survey ... that reflects socioeconomic well-being,” and that this reflects the findings of earlier surveys. Trial Tr. at 911. The ACS data showed high levels of disparity between black and white individuals in the County in areas such as median household income, median family income, per capita income, and unemployment of the working age population. Id. at 917-19, 926; see also generally Ex. P261. The data also indicates that the poverty rate for African Americans in Albany County is approximately five times that of non-Hispanic whites. Trial Tr. at 917. Data from the City shows similar trends. See id. at 928-29; see also Ex. P260.

Plaintiffs also presented lay testimony about the socioeconomic and health concerns of African Americans in the County, including disparate rates of health issues such as HIV, diabetes, and asthma, see Trial Tr. at 5-6, 18, 568-69; barriers to accessing health services, id. at 19-21; and greater high-school dropout rates than white students, id. at 16, 36-38, 66-67, 476. Former Deputy Commissioner of Social Services David Kircher testified that the highest level of need for the department’s services and for temporary assistance programs comes from the minority communities in the City. See id. at 1602.

In addition, witnesses testified that minority voters in Albany County tend to have lower voter turnout rates than white voters. See id. at 109-12,1693.

6.Racial Appeals in Campaigns

Several candidates discussed incidents of racial discrimination that they had experienced during their campaigns. See, e.g., Trial Tr. at 1064-65; Gonzalez Dep. at 37-39; Willingham Decl. at ¶23. However, such overt incidents were rare, and Plaintiffs do not allege that the candidates in these races made any racial appeals to voters.

7.Past Election of Minority Group Members

Four minority candidates have been elected to County-wide positions: District Attorney Soares; two County Coroners, Herman Thomas and Charles Smoot; and Richard Rivera, a Family Court Judge. Soares won a hotly-contested primary in 2004 against a white incumbent, see Trial Tr. at 129-30, 1703-04, and faced a primary challenger in his 2012 re-election, Ex. D5. Coroner Thomas was an appointed incumbent in his first election, see Ex. P91, Table 5, and Judge Rivera ran unopposed, see Trial Tr. at 134-35. Coroner Smoot ran unopposed in his first election in 2011, but won a contested election in 2013. See Exs. D2, D6.

In County Legislature elections, minority candidates have seen little success outside of MMDs. The only minority County Legislator to be elected outside of an MMD, Bill Clay, was first appointed to the position in 2003 following the Arbor Hill Litigation and won his first race in a special election in 2004. See Trial Tr. at 1761. He has won two uncontested elections since then. See Exs. D6 at 4; D14 at 6.

8.Responsiveness to Minority Needs

The County has made significant efforts to address health issues faced by the minority community. For many years, the County has maintained a lead paint abatement initiative, focused on detecting lead-based paint hazards and addressing them before they harm children’s health. See Trial Tr. at 1745-46; see also id. at 661-62. In addition, the County provides subsidized dental care at a clinic in the South End, see id. at 660-61, 1749, and maternal and prenatal care programs in Arbor Hill and the South End, id. at 1748. The County has also done work on HIV and AIDS education in minority communities. See id. at 660.

County Executive McCoy recently imposed a moratorium on construction of further oil facili