Full opinion text
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1303 I. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS II. FINDINGS OF FACT A. THE PARTIES LO © CO t*H B. THE CLAIMS" ZD O CO r — I C. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1306 1. History of the Governing Body 1307 2. Demographics of Los Angeles County 1308 3. Campaign Financing 1309 4. Prior Redistrictings 1309 (a) 1959 Redistricting 1310 (b) 1963 Redistricting 1310 (c) 1965 Redistricting 1311 (d) 1971 Redistricting 1312 (1) Intent of Past Redistrictings 1313 (e) 1972 Los Angeles City Council Redistricting 1313 (f) 1981 Redistricting 1317 (1) Intent of 1981 Redistricting D. SIZE AND GEOGRAPHIC COMPACTNESS OF HISPANIC COMMUNITY 1318 1. 1980 Census Data 1319 2. Growth in Hispanic Population Since 1980 1320 3. Accuracy of Post-Census Data 1321 (a) Reliability of PEPS Data 1322 4. Citizen Voting Age Population 1323 5. Voter Registration and Turnout 1323 6. Misreporting of Citizenship 1325 7. Undercount of Hispanics 1325 8. Spanish-Surname/Spanish-Origin 1326 (a) Adjustments for “European Spanish” 1327 9. Deadwood 1328 10. Plaintiffs’- Illustrative Plans 1328 (a) The Grofman Plans 1328 (b) The Estrada Plans E. POLITICAL COHESIVENESS 1. Hispanic Candidacies in Tos Angeles County 1978-1989 (a) Contests for Los Angeles County Supervisor r — 1 CO DO 00 (b) Other Nonpartisan County Contests ) — 1 CO CO zd II. FINDINGS OF FACT E. POLITICAL COHESIVENESS 1. Hispanic Candidacies in Los Angeles County 1978-1989 (c) Non-County wide Elections © CO CO t — d (d) Countywide Partisan Elections T“t CO CO t-H 2. Analysis of Ethnically Polarized Voting 1331 (a) Methodology 1333 (b) Results of Analysis 1335 3. Cohesiveness of Hispanic Voters 1337 F. NON-HISPANIC BLOC VOTING G. OTHER SENATE FACTORS 1339 1. History of Official Discrimination 1340 (a) Repatriation 1340 (b) Education 1340 (c) Public Facilities 1340 (d) Right to Vote 1341 2. Racial Appeals 1341 3. Size of Election Districts III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1342 A. JURISDICTION 1342 B. THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT 1342 1. The Senate Factors 1344 (a) Geographical Compactness 1344 (1) Voting Age Population 1345 (2) Current Population Data 1345 (3) Estimates and Projections 1345 (b) Political Cohesiveness 1346 (1) Ecological Regression Analysis 1346 (c) Racial Bloc Voting 1347 (d) History of Discrimination 1348 (e) Other Discriminatory Voting Practices 1348 (f) Size of Election Districts 1348 (g) Candidate Slating Process 1348 (h) Lingering Effects of Past Discrimination 1348 (i) Election of Minorities 1348 C. DISCRIMINATORY RESULTS V. INTENT D. INTER-DECENNIAL REDISTRICTING 1350 E. TOTAL POPULATION AS APPORTIONMENT BASE 1350 F. ONE PERSON ONE VOTE RULE 1350 G. REAPPORTIONMENT 1351 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW KENYON, District Judge. I. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The Court has spent the past several weeks since the conclusion of this trial on April 10, 1990, immersed in what the Supreme Court in Thornburg v. Gingles referred to as a “searching evaluation of ‘past and present reality’ ” and on a “ ‘functional’ view of the political process.” 478 U.S. 30, 45, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 2764, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986) citing S.Rep. at 30, n. 120, U.S. Code Cong. & Admin.News 1982, pp. 177, 208. The conclusion this Court reaches is that, on a fundamental level, the Hispanic community has sadly been denied an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect candidates of their choice to the Board of Supervisors for this burgeoning County. As the findings below set forth, plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the 1981 redistricting plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, the Court finds that the Hispanic community is sufficiently large and geographically compact such that a five district plan can be drawn in which Hispanics comprise a majority of the citizen voting age population in one of the five districts. The post-1980 estimates of citizen voting age population, based upon PEPS data and the special tabulation of voting age citizens by the Census Bureau, are reliable as an alternative means of proof that under current conditions it is possible to create a supervisorial district with an Hispanic citizen voting age population majority. Further, even if the Court were to use 1980 Census data, plaintiffs have established through illustrative plans that Hispanic voting age citizens had the potential to elect the candidate of their choice absent a clear citizen voting age majority. It would be myopic, on these facts and circumstances, for the Court to apply the bright line 50 percent requirement set forth by the Ninth Circuit in Romero v. City of Pomona, 883 F.2d 1418, 1426 (9th Cir.1989), as an absolute measure of undiluted minority voting strength. While this Court can imagine a number of circumstances in which the 50 percent figure is dispositive, as Justice O’Connor stated in her concurring opinion in Gingles: “[TJhere is no indication that Congress intended to mandate a single, universally applicable standard for measuring undiluted minority voting strength, regardless of local conditions and regardless of the extent of past discrimination against minority voters in a particular State or political subdivision.” 478 U.S. at 94-95, 106 S.Ct. at 2789 (O’Connor, J., concurring). In this case, the explosive and continuous growth of the Los Angeles County Hispanic community was evident at the time of the adoption of the 1981 redistricting plan as was the steady decline of the County’s non-Hispanic white population. These facts, coupled with a long and painful history of discrimination against Hispanics in this County weighs heavily in favor of the conclusion that even relying solely on the 1980 Census data, plaintiffs have met their burden under Gingles. The Court also finds that Hispanics are politically cohesive and that voting behavior is polarized between Hispanics and non-Hispanics. In particular, the Court concludes that Hispanic voters regularly provide overwhelming support for Hispanic candidates while the degree of non-Hispanic cross-over voting is minimal. Given the estimated levels of polarization, including the effects of non-Hispanic bloc voting, an Hispanic candidate is unable to be elected to the Board under the current configuration of supervisorial districts. During the 1981 redistricting process, the Supervisors’ primary objective was to protect their incumbencies and that of their allies. This objective, however, was inescapably linked to the continued fragmentation of the Hispanic population core. The Court believes that had the Board found it possible to protect their incumbencies while increasing Hispanic voting strength, they would have acted to satisfy both objectives. As defendants' counsel argued in opening statement: “It was not, ... the case of a Republican protecting [his] incumbency against the Hispanic Republican. It was the Republican protecting himself or protecting his philosophical concerns and those of the ones who elected him from a change to a Democratic seat.... Now looking again to the motive of minority members on the Board of Supervisors. Again what you find is that it was not an effort by the Anglos to preclude Hispanics from getting elected.... It was not because of a desire on anyone’s part to dilute or diffuse or to keep the Hispanic community powerless; it was because they could not find the way to do what everyone wanted to do. And that sometimes happens in politics.” It is undeniable, however, that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors knew that by adopting the 1981 redistricting plan, they were further impairing the ability of Hispanics to gain representation on the Board. The Court finds no legal justification for this form of discrimination based on the protection of supervisorial incumbencies. As the court stated in Rybicki v. State Board of Elections, 574 F.Supp. 1082, 1109 (N.D.Ill.1982), where the requirements of incumbency “are so closely intertwined with the need for racial dilution ... an intent to maintain a safe, primarily white, district ... is virtually coterminous with a purpose to practice racial discrimination.” The Court finds, on the evidence presented, that the Supervisors acted with the intent to maintain the fragmentation of the Hispanic vote. Throughout this trial, the Court heard extensive testimony regarding the size of the supervisorial districts. The Court strongly believes, as one Supervisor testified, that the districts are now too large for any one person to adequately represent. The Court believes that expansion may well be in the best interest of all concerned. However, the Court finds that while the size of the districts contributes significantly to the inability of Hispanics to elect a candidate of their choice, plaintiffs have failed to establish a valid legal claim based solely on the size of the supervisorial districts. Since the task of reapportionment is properly a legislative function, it is appropriate, in this case, to allow the Board of Supervisors a reasonable opportunity to meet constitutional requirements by adopting a substitute measure. Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535, 540, 98 S.Ct. 2493, 2497, 57 L.Ed.2d 411 (1978). It is the sincere hope of this Court that in fashioning a suitable remedy, defendants will carefully reconsider the issue of expansion. II. FINDINGS OF FACT A. THE PARTIES 1.The United States of America is the plaintiff in the consolidated case, No. CY 88-5435 KN, United States of America v. County of Los Angeles, et al. The United States was represented by Steven H. Rosenbaum, of the Voting Section, Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. 2. Hispanic registered voters in Los Angeles County are the plaintiffs in this consolidated class action, No. CV 88-5143 KN, Yolanda Garza, et al. v. County of Los Angeles, et al. The class representatives include: plaintiff Yolanda Garza, a resident of Supervisorial District One; plaintiff Salvador H. Ledezma, a resident of Supervisorial District Two; plaintiff Raymond Palacios, a resident of Supervi-sorial District Three; plaintiff Guadalupe De La Garza, a resident of Supervisorial District Four; and plaintiff Monica Tovar, a resident of Supervisorial District Five. All are United States citizens of Spanish heritage and registered voters in Los Ange-les County, California, (hereinafter the “Garza plaintiffs”). Richard P. Fajardo, of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), and Mark D. Rosenbaum of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) represented the Garza plaintiffs. 3. Defendant Los Angeles County is a political subdivision of the State of California established under the laws of the State and the Charter of the County of Los An-geles. Los Angeles County is subject to the requirements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, Pub.L. No. 97-205, § 3, 96 Stat. 134 (1982), codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973, et seq. 4. Defendants Edmund D. Edelman, Board Chairman; Peter F. Schabarum, Kenneth Hahn, Deane Dana, and Michael D. Antonovich, are duly elected members of the Board of Supervisors of the County. All are white non-Hispanic persons. 5. Defendant Charles Weissburd is the Registrar-Recorder of Los Angeles County responsible for the conduct of elections in the County, including elections for positions on the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Weissburd is a white non-Hispanic person sued in his official capacity. 6. Defendant Richard B. Dixon is the administrative officer of Los Angeles County and has primary responsibility for the conduct of day-to-day County affairs including oversight and implementation of County and State election laws. Mr. Dixon is a white non-Hispanic person sued in his official capacity. 7. Defendant Frank F. Zolin, named as a defendant by the Garza plaintiffs, is the Clerk/Executive Officer for the County responsible for conducting County elections. 8. Defendants were represented by John McDermott, Lee Blackman, and Richard Simon, of McDermott, Will & Emery. B. THE CLAIMS 9. Both the United States and the Garza plaintiffs challenge the 1981 redistricting plan (hereinafter “the 1981 Plan”) under the authority of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (hereinafter “the Act”). 10. The Garza plaintiffs bring this class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) on their own behalf and on behalf of all Hispanic citizens whose right to vote has been or will be abridged by the adoption and maintenance of the 1981 Plan. 11. The Garza plaintiffs also challenge the 1981 Plan on the grounds that it was adopted and/or maintained for the purpose of discriminating against Hispanic citizens in violation of Section 2 of the Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 12. The Garza plaintiffs allege that the presence of only five supervisorial districts results in the dilution of Hispanic voting rights in violation of Section 2 of the Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. C. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1. History of the Governing Body 13. Los Angeles County was one of the original 27 counties formed in 1850 by the California Legislature. 14. The first Board of Supervisors was elected in 1852. 15. Los Angeles County has been governed by a five-member Board of Supervisors at all times except for a two-year period between 1883 and 1885, when the Board consisted of seven members. 16. Under the provisions of a charter adopted in 1912, Los Angeles County was granted home rule power and was divided into five supervisorial districts. The charter became effective in 1913. 17. Since at least 1914, the Supervisors have been elected during even-numbered years in nonpartisan elections. If no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast in a June primary, the two candidates who receive the highest number of votes oppose each other in a general election in November of that year. 18. Supervisors are elected for four-year, staggered terms. 19. Elections for Supervisor in Districts 2, 4 and 5 were held in 1988. Elections for Supervisor in Districts 1 and 3 are scheduled to be conducted in 1990. 20. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has legislative, executive and quasi-judicial powers. 21. The Board of Supervisors has authority pursuant to state law to alter, with voter approval, the size of the governing body. 22. Pursuant to the charter of the County of Los Angeles, the Board of Supervisors has authority, within one year after a general election, to redraw the boundaries of the supervisorial districts. Charter of the County of Los Angeles, Art. II, Sec. 7 (1985). 23. Los Angeles County is responsible for providing certain classes of governmental services to all County residents including health services, courts, elections and welfare. 24. Los Angeles County is also responsible for providing full municipal services to residents of the unincorporated areas of the County, including fire protection, law enforcement, planning, zoning and building inspection. 25. Supervisor Edelman agreed with the finding in “To Serve Seven Million,” a 1976 report of the Public Commission on Los Angeles County Government, that “[n]o other local official in the United States is assigned responsibilities of the breadth and scale of those afforded a Los Angeles County Supervisor.” 26. Los Angeles County has a contracting program to provide certain services to cities requesting these services. As a result of the contracting program, the County provides a significant portion of local governmental service to all County residents. 27. The Board of Supervisors has the authority to adopt the County’s budget, appropriate funds pursuant to the budget and conduct elections in the County. 28. Los Angeles County had a budget of $9,111,147,132 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1989. 2. Demographics of Los Angeles County 29. The demographic picture of Los An-geles County has changed dramatically since 1950. 30. The 1950 Census of Population, (hereinafter “Census”), reported that the total population of Los Angeles County was 4,015,687, of whom 287,614 (7.2%) were persons with Spanish surnames. 31. The 1960 Census reported that the total population of Los Angeles County was 6,038,771, of whom 576,716 (9.6%) were persons with Spanish surnames. 32. The total population of Los Angeles County increased by 2,023,084 persons (50.4%) between 1950 and 1960 while the County's Spanish-surnamed population increased by 289,102 persons (100.5%) between 1950 and 1960. 33. The 1960 Census data revealed a population concentration of Spanish sur-named persons in the area south and east of downtown Los Angeles. 34. The 1970 Census reported that the total population of Los Angeles County was 7,032,075 persons, of whom 1,289,311 (18.3%) were persons with Spanish surnames. 35. The total population of Los Angeles County increased by 993,304 persons (16.4%) between 1960 and 1970, while the County’s Spanish-surnamed population increased by 712,595 persons (60.24%). 36. The 1970 Census revealed several discrete concentrations of Spanish sur-named persons in the center of the County. 37. The 1980 Census reported that the total population of the County of Los Ange-les was 7,477,503 persons, of whom 2,066,-103 (27.6%) were persons of Spanish origin, 926,361 (12.4%) were black persons and 434,850 (5.8%) were Asians and Pacific Islanders. 38. The total population of Los Angeles County increased by 445,428 persons (6.3%) between 1970 and 1980 while the number of persons of Spanish origin in the County increased by 776,792 persons (60.2%). 39. According to the 1980 Census, the population of Los Angeles County can be summarized as follows: Los Angeles County — 1980 Census Total Hispanic White Black Asian Others POP 7,477,503 27.6% 52.9% 12.4% CO i“H CO LO YAP 5,446,115 23.3% 58.3% 11.4% 03 OO lO CVAP 4,515,239 14.6% 67.4% 13.5% CO <0 t-; CO 40. The data from the previous three decennial censuses demonstrate that as Los Angeles County’s total population has grown over the past few decades, the County’s racial and ethnic composition has also changed. The group that has grown the fastest in recent years is comprised of persons of Spanish origin, as reported by the Census in 1980. 41. The number of persons reported as having Spanish surnames in the 1970 Census of Los Angeles County was 1,051,409. 42. By the time of the 1980 Census, more than 2 million people in Los Angeles County reported that they were of Spanish origin. 43. The County’s Hispanic population is concentrated, to a significant extent, in a compact and contiguous area beginning in the eastern part of the City of Los Angeles and extending eastward into the San Gabriel Valley, (hereinafter “Hispanic Core”) 44. This Hispanic Core includes Boyle Heights, Lincoln Heights and El Sereno in 'the City of Los Angeles, the unincorporated East Los Angeles community, and the cities of Rosemead, Pico Rivera, Montebel-lo, La Puente, El Monte, Maywood, Vernon, Bell, Bell Gardens and other cities and unincorporated communities. 45. The Hispanic Core is contained within a set of 229 census tracts. These tracts are contiguous and persons of Spanish origin were the majority of the population in all but three of the tracts according to the full-count data from the 1980 Census. 46. According to the 1980 Census, the Hispanic Core had a total population of 1,204,279, of whom 877,478 (72.8%) were Hispanic and a voting age population that was 67.4 percent Hispanic. 47. Approximately 40 percent of the County’s entire Hispanic population lived in one of the 229 core census tracts in 1980, and these tracts comprise 81 percent of all census tracts with Hispanic population majorities in 1980. 48. Data from the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services and Data Processing have been presented to the Court in the form of a series of small-area population estimates and projections known as the Population Estimates and Projections System (hereinafter “PEPS”). 49. PEPS data contains estimates of 1985 and 1987 total population and population by race and ethnicity by various age levels for each populated census tract in Los Angeles County. 50. PEPS also generated projections of 1989 and 1990 total population and population by race and ethnicity by various age levels for each populated census tract in the County. 51. The County’s population as a whole grew by 12.3 percent between 1980 and 1987. The County’s Hispanic population grew by 42.7 percent between 1980 and 1987. By 1990, Hispanics are expected to constitute 35.8 percent of the total population of the County. 52. According to PEPS data, the number of non-Hispanic whites fell by 378,000 between 1980 and 1987. In 1980, non-Hispanic whites made up 53.2 percent of the County’s total population. By 1987, non-Hispanics made up only 42.8 percent of the County’s total population. 53. In 1990, non-Hispanic whites are projected to constitute 39.8 percent of the population. 54. In the Hispanic Core, the total population was estimated by PEPS to have grown from 1,204,279 persons to 1,519,630 persons between 1980 and 1987. 3. Campaign Financing 55. Since 1960, only three incumbents running for a seat on the Board of Supervisors were defeated in their reelection bids. Supervisor Hahn has served since 1952; Supervisor Schabarum since 1972; Supervisor Edelman since 1974; and Supervisors Dana and Antonovich since 1980. 56. Incumbent Supervisors enjoy a strong campaign fund-raising advantage over their challengers for reelection. 57. In 1987, the combined campaign funds of the five incumbent Supervisors totaled $3 million. Forty-nine percent of this amount belonged to Supervisors Scha-barum and Edelman, who would not run for reelection until 1990. The largest amount, $800,000 belonged to Supervisor Dana, the smallest, $210,000, to Supervisor Hahn. 58. Incumbent Supervisors received 91 percent, $8.2 million of $9.1 million, of all campaign money raised from 1981 to 1986 and raised 74 percent of their contribution in non-election years. 59. During the 1982, 1984, 1986, and 1988 elections, each incumbent Supervisor had more campaign funds expended on his behalf than were expended on behalf of his combined opposition. 60. Potential candidates recognize that to be considered a serious candidate for the Board, a person must spend between one and two million dollars on a campaign. 61. Mr. George Pla, who has managed political campaigns for elections in Los An-geles County, testified that it would be difficult for any candidate to raise $1-2 million, but that it would be even more difficult for an Hispanic candidate because of lack of a financial base. Pla also noted the adverse effect the inability to raise funds had on public perception of an Hispanic candidate’s likelihood of success. 4. Prior Redistrictings 62. The 1981 Plan cannot be analyzed in a vacuum. As illustrated by the testimony of J. Morgan Kousser, a professor of History at the California Institute of Technology, if the Court examines the changes in District 3 in the context of the demographic changes in the County as a whole, as well as the place where Hispanics lived and moved to during that period of time, the pattern is persuasive evidence that the lines were drawn and maintained with a racially discriminatory design. 63. Dr. Kousser, in particular, concluded that there was ample evidence to be gleaned from the history of prior redistrict-ings to indicate that the Board kept the Hispanic Core split in order to secure their positions against challengers who would appeal to Hispanic voters. (a) The 1959 Redistricting 64. Prior to 1959, District 3 included Western Rosemead and did not include any portion of the San Fernando Valley, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, West Los Ange-les, or Eagle Rock. 65. The 1959 redistricting occurred less than six months after the November 1958 general election for the open position of District 3 Supervisor. Ernest Debs, a non-Hispanic, defeated Hispanic candidate Edward Roybal, by a margin of 52.2 percent to 47.8 percent. 66. Debs received 141,011 votes. Roy-bal received 128,974 votes. There were four recounts before Debs was finally determined to be the winner. 67. In 1959, Debs reported in a Supervi-sorial hearing that he and District 4 Supervisor Burton Chace agreed to shift Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, and West Los An-geles from District 4 to District 3. 68. The Board’s action transferred between 50,000 to 100,000 voters from District 4 into District 3 and had the effect of substantially decreasing the proportion of Hispanic voters in District 3. 69. Dr. Kousser testified it was his opinion that Debs and Chace agreed to the transfer for two reasons. First, Chace was receptive to the agreement because it enabled him to eliminate Los Angeles City Councilwoman Rosalind Wyman as a possible opponent in his upcoming 1960 bid for reelection. Debs welcomed the change because the move west allowed him to make District 3 more easily winnable against Roybal or another candidate who might appeal to Hispanic voters in the next election. 70. Debs was a Democrat and Chace a Republican. The two were not allies on other issues. 71. At the time of this transfer, District 1, which borders on the east of District 3, was much larger than the other four districts. 72. If Debs had taken communities from District 1, the five districts would have been equipopulous. The lack of effective equal population requirements at the time made it possible for the District 3 to be moved deliberately west instead of east which avoided adding communities from the Roybal stronghold in East Los Angeles, (b) The 1963 Redistricting 73. On December 19, 1961, the Board of Supervisors, acting in accordance with Section 25009 of the California Government Code enacted in 1961, adopted an order establishing the Supervisorial District Boundary Committee, (hereinafter “Boundary Committee”), to study and make recommendations concerning the need for changing Supervisorial district boundaries in Los Angeles County. Each Supervisor appointed one member to the committee. 74. In 1962, voters defeated a referendum to expand the Board of Supervisors from five to seven members. 75. Evidence suggests Debs wanted the referendum issue on the ballot in 1962 because he sought to move his district out of East Los Angeles and concentrate his district in the western area of the district, Beverly Hills, West Los Angeles and West Hollywood, communities with larger proportions of Non-Hispanic whites. 76. The Board of Supervisors adopted ordinance 8407 on May 14, 1963 which enacted the recommendations of the Boundary Committee and established new district boundaries. 77. The boundary changes involved a shift in the boundary between Districts 3 and 5, in which District 3 was extended north across the Santa Monica Mountains, for the first time, to the Ventura Freeway and into the San Fernando Valley. Eagle Rock was also added to District 3. 78. At the time of the 1963 boundary changes, a growing Hispanic population was beginning to emerge in the San Gabriel Valley, directly adjacent to the eastern boundary of District 3. Eagle Rock, in contrast, was about 4 percent Spanish surname and the portion of the San Fernando Valley annexed to District 2 was about 1 percent Spanish surname. 79. Since District 3 was underpopulated in 1963 and District 1 was overpopulated, population equality among the supervisorial districts could have been fostered by moving District l’s growing Hispanic areas in the San Gabriel Valley directly to District 3. This was not done. (c) The 1965 Redistricting 80. In 1965, the California Supreme Court ruled that no Supervisorial district in California should have more than 23 percent or less than 17 percent of a County’s total population. Miller v. Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County, 63 Cal.2d 343, 46 Cal.Rptr. 617, 405 P.2d 857 (1965). 81. In response to Miller, the Los An-geles County Board of Supervisors reactivated the Supervisorial District Boundary Committee on October 5, 1965. 82. The 1965 Boundary Committee considered a proposal by Russell Quisenberry, the appointee of District 5 Supervisor Warren Dorn, to move 90,000 people in Alhambra and San Gabriel, areas close to the Hispanic Core, from District 1 to Debs’ District 3. Dorn proposed that these changes be implemented after the 1966 election, when Debs faced reelection. 83. The Boundary Committee did not follow the Dorn proposal. Instead, Alhambra and San Gabriel were assigned to Dorn’s Fifth District and 87,000 predominantly Anglo residents of San Fernando Valley were moved to Debs’ District 3 from Dorn’s District 5. 84.The Boundary Committee reported that, based on estimates of population, the Supervisorial Districts if revised according to the committee’s recommendations, would have the following populations: District 1 1,492,000 District 2 1,258,000 District 3 1,398,000 District 4 1,253,000 District 5 1,484,000 85.The Boundary Committee plan provided for an average deviation from population equality of 7.06 percent and a maximum deviation of 17.35 percent. 86.On November 30,1965, the Board of Supervisors, by a 4-1 vote with Supervisor Hahn dissenting, adopted Ordinance 8998, which enacted the plan proposed by the 1965 Boundary Committee. 87. The adoption of the 1965 plan involved such changes as: (1) The inclusion of the City of Long Beach, which previously was split between two districts, wholly in District 4; (2) The boundary between District 3 and District 5 was shifted from the Ventura Freeway to Oxnard Boulevard; (3) Monterey Park and unincorporated South San Gabriel were transferred from District 1 to District 3; and (4) District 5, as previously discussed, was allocated a portion of the eastern part of the County in the San Gabriel Valley which previously had been represented by Supervisor Bonelli from District 1. 88. The Boundary Committee rejected a proposal to move Alhambra and San Gabriel, areas adjacent to growing Hispanic population, from District 1 to District 3. Instead, the committee recommended a complicated two-stage change which moved Alhambra and San Gabriel from Supervisor Bonelli’s District 1 to Supervisor Dorn’s District 5, moved a section of the San Fernando Valley from District 5 to Supervisor Debs’ District 3, and moved Monterey Park and unincorporated South San Gabriel from District 1 to District 3. 89. Dr. Kousser testified that, in his opinion, the Board avoided transferring Alhambra and San Gabriel directly to District 3 because those areas were adjacent to areas of Hispanic population concentration and were becoming more Hispanic. The more complicated two-stage adjustments permitted the addition of heavily Anglo areas from the San Fernando Valley and offset the much more limited addition of Hispanic population gained by moving Mon-terey Park and the unincorporated area of South San Gabriel to District 3. 90. None of the persons who served on the 1965 Boundary Committee were individuals with Spanish surnames. (d) The 1971 Redistricting 91. A comparison of the 1960 Census data with 1970 Census data demonstrates the extent to which areas bordering on District 3 were gaining Hispanic population. Spanish surname population increased during that decade in Alhambra from 6 percent to 19 percent and in Monte-rey Park from 13 percent to 33 percent. 92. The Hispanic population in the County doubled from 1970 to 1980 and, in 1970, the Hispanic Core showed marked and continuous expansion outward and contiguously into the San Gabriel Valley. 93. Efforts were made during this time to expand the Board of Supervisors. Esteban Torres, who was president of the Congress of Mexican American Unity, testified before the Los Angeles County Economy and Efficiency Committee in April 1970, to urge that the Committee recommend expansion of the Board. 94. Concurrent efforts were also made to expand the Los Angeles City Council. 95. The Board failed to obtain the three votes necessary to place the issue on the ballot. The City Council expansion effort failed to pass at the polls. 96. The Board of Supervisors established the Los Angeles County Supervisorial District Boundary Committee on April 20, 1970. (hereinafter “Boundary Committee”) 97. The members of the committee and the Supervisors who appointed them were as follows: John D. Lusk by Supervisor Bonelli; Dan Patacchia by Supervisor Hahn; Leslie G. Cramer by Supervisor Debs; LeRoy Center by Supervisor Chace; and Alfred E. Paonessa by Supervisor Dorn. 98. None of the individuals who served on the 1963, 1965 and 1971 Boundary Committees had a Spanish surname. 99. Richard Schoeni, a County employee, served as the secretary to the 1971 Boundary Committee. In this capacity, Mr. Schoeni provided staff support, gathered information, made suggestions, maintained the committee’s records, and drafted the report and recommendations that the Committee submitted to the Board of Supervisors. 100. Pursuant to Section 25001 of the California Government Code, the Board, in redistricting, may consider such factors as: topography, geography, cohesiveness, contiguity, integrity, compactness of territory, and community of interests of the districts. 101.The Boundary Committee adopted the following guidelines in addition to the factors delineated in the California Government Code: (1) to preserve historical representation of certain areas- closely identified with a particular district; (2) to avoid the division of cities by supervisorial boundaries whenever possible; and (3) to avoid the separation of cities or communities sharing common interests and problems peculiar to a section of the County. 102.Population statistics generated from the 1970 Census demonstrated that the 1965 supervisorial districts had the following populations: Percentage District Population of Total 1 1,547,407 22.0 2 1,238,454 17.6 3 1,364,312 19.4 4 1,271,186 18.1 5 1,610,716 22.9 103.Among the proposals discussed during the meetings of the Boundary Committee was one presented by Leslie Cram-er, representative of Ernest Debs, to extend District 3 further into the San Fernando Valley north of Oxnard Boulevard. 104.The 1971 Boundary Committee never gave any consideration to moving District 3 east to include more of the San Gabriel Valley or moving Pico Rivera from District 1, which was overpopulated, to District 3. Nor did the committee consider adding such areas as San Gabriel, Rose-mead or El Monte to District 3. 105. According to the testimony of Dr. Schoeni, moving District 3 east was not considered to avoid splitting the San Gabriel Valley. However, San Gabriel Valley was already split among District 5 which contains Alhambra, San Gabriel, and East San Gabriel; and District 3 which contains South San Gabriel and part of Rosemead. 106. The Los Angeles County Supervi-sorial District Boundary Committee Report and Recommendations, which included a detailed description of the supervisorial boundaries prepared by the County Engineer, was submitted to the Board of Supervisors on July 22, 1971. The Board adopted the plan proposed by the Boundary Committee. 107. The Boundary Committee recommended the following changes to the existing plan: (1) Artesia, Bellflower, Cerritos and Lakewood were transferred from District 1 to District 4; (2) Rosemead was transferred from District 3 to District 1; and (3) Van Nuys, Sepulveda, Panorama City and Sun Valley were transferred to District 3 from District 5. 108. As a result of the 1971 redistricting, District 3 gained over 205,000 people from other districts and lost more than 163,000 people to other districts. 109. In 1971, District 3 lost some areas with substantial Hispanic population on its eastern border. Western Rosemead was transferred from District 3 to District 1. A census tract in the City of San Gabriel was also transferred from District 3 to District 5. 110. George Marr, head of the Population Research Section of the Department of Regional Planning testified that he was surprised by the proposal to move a substantial portion of the San Fernando Valley from District 5 to District 3. Marr described the portion of the San Fernando Valley ultimately added to District 3 from District 5 as looking like “one of those Easter Island heads.” Marr developed the general feeling that Debs’ representative on the Boundary Committee had requested the additional area in the San Fernando Valley because the residents of the area were regarded as “our kind of people.” 111. None of the persons who served on the 1971 Boundary Commission were individuals with Spanish surnames. (1) Intent of Past Redistrictings 112. The Court finds that the Board has redrawn the supervisorial boundaries over the period 1959-1971, at least in part, to avoid enhancing Hispanic voting strength in District 3, the district that has historically had the highest proportion of Hispanics and to make it less likely that a viable, well financed Hispanic opponent would seek office in that district. This finding is based on both direct and circumstantial evidence, including the finding that, since the defeat of Edward Roybal in 1959, no well-financed Hispanic or Spanish-surname candidate has run for election in District 3. 113. While Hispanic population was added to District 3 during the 1959-1971 redistrictings, the Court finds that the proportion of Spanish-surname persons added to District 3 has been lower than the Hispanic population proportion in the County as a whole. No individual area added was greater than 15.1 percent Spanish-surname. 114. Dating from the adoption of the County’s Charter in 1912 through the 1971 redistricting process, no Los Angeles County redistricting plan has created a supervi-sorial district in which Hispanic persons constituted a majority or a plurality of the total population. (e) 1972 Los Angeles City Council Redistricting 115. In 1971, the California Supreme Court ruled that the 1968 voter-based reapportionment plan for the Los Angeles City Council was unconstitutional. Calderon v. City of Los Angeles, 4 Cal.3d 251, 266, 93 Cal.Rptr. 361, 481 P.2d 489 (1971). 116. In 1972, the Charter and Code Committee set out to devise a new redistricting plan. 117. As then Committee Chair Edmund Edelman stated in a 1971 press release: “It is my intention to urge my colleagues on the committee and on the council to create a district where it would be possible for a Mexican-American to be elected.” 118. Edelman proposed a plan which increased the Spanish surname proportion in District 14, held by Councilman Art Snyder, from approximately 40 percent to 68 percent Hispanic by unifying Hispanic communities previously split by Districts 13 and 14. 119. Citizenship and voting age data were not used for purposes of devising the city’s 1972 redistricting plan. 120. In devising the 1972 plan, Edelman was assisted by Alma Fitch and Jeff Seymour, both of whom played a role in the 1981 supervisorial redistricting. 121. Chicanos for Fair Representation criticized Edelman’s plan and questioned the accuracy of the 68 percent estimate of Spanish surname population, believing it to be 57 percent. 122. The City Council adopted the Edel-man Plan and overrode the veto of Mayor Sam Yorty. 123. Despite the substantial increase in the Hispanic population in District 14, Councilman Snyder was able to defeat several Hispanic opponents. 124. In 1985, after Snyder’s retirement, Richard Alatorre was elected to represent District 14 and became the first Hispanic to serve on the Los Angeles City Council since Edward Roybal. (f) The 1981 Redistricting 125. The individuals involved in the 1981 redistricting had demographic information available of population changes and trends in Los Angeles County from 1950 to 1980. It was readily apparent in 1980 that the Hispanic population was on the rise and growing rapidly and that the white non-Hispanic population was declining. 126. According to the report of the 1981 Boundary Advisory Committee, the 1980 Census data showed that the districts under the 1971 boundaries had the following population characteristics: District Population % Black % Hispanic % 47,772 550,819 1,522,347 cc Cg tO o h 635,751 354,314 1,423,015 05 ^ ) — 1 q o eg 44,868 669,246 1,577,877 eg eg tO h Í — 1 co 140,585 236,518 1,445,286 ci ^ id I — 1 q co 75,003 254,830 1,509,132 tri 05 to to o to to 127. From a political perspective, since Hispanic population growth was most significant in Districts 1 and 3, if the 1971 boundaries were changed in any measurable way to eliminate the existing fragmentation, the incumbency of either Supervisor Schabarum or Supervisor Edelman would be most affected by a potential Hispanic candidate. 128. All of the plans considered by the participants in the redistricting were based on 1980 Census population data. 129. In 1981, citizenship or voting age data was not considered or requested by County staff, Boundary Committee members or the Supervisors and their aides. 130. No suggestion was made in 1981 that citizenship data or voter registration data be used as the apportionment base. 131. On February 27, 1981, Deane Dana sent a lettergram to Supervisors Schaba-rum and Antonovich recommending that both a public and a private redistricting committee be established. Dana suggested obtaining the services of Joseph Shumate to assist in the redistricting effort noting the experience Shumate had with the Republican reapportionment efforts in 1970, 1971 and 1972. 132. Mr. Shumate was hired to work in a private capacity on behalf of Supervisors Dana, Schabarum and Antonovich. The objective, according to Mr. Shumate’s testimony, was “to assist in determining whether a plan would help or hurt the three Supervisors.” 133. Allan Hoffenblum, a political ad-visor to Supervisor Antonovich, testified that the following statement attributed to him was what he believed at the time: “We would be remiss if we did not have at least one district that was at least 50 percent Hispanic, otherwise it looks like we’re sitting here trying to save five white Supervisors.” 134. Supervisor Edelman and others involved in the 1981 redistricting effort were not aware of Mr. Shumate or the role he played on behalf of Supervisors Schaba-rum, Antonovich and Dana. 135. While these three Supervisors were pursuing their redistricting efforts, Supervisor Edelman asked Jeffrey Seymour to assist him in the redistricting process by examining maps produced and by preparing a political analysis of Supervisor Edelman’s district. 136. An analysis of the 1978 Supervisor election in District 3 was conducted after the Boundary Committee recommended a plan with an Hispanic population majority in District 3. The actual results of the analysis were never produced. Mr. Seymour did not rule out the possibility that he requested such an analysis and Supervisor Edelman testified that he “most probably” discussed the results of the 1978 election analysis with Mr. Seymour. 137. Peter Bonardi, a programmer with the Urban Research Section of the Data Processing Department in 1981 and a participant in the data analysis requested by Supervisor Edelman, stated that he was directed not to talk about the analysis of voting patterns and that an “atmosphere of ‘keep it quiet’ ” pervaded. 138. Supervisors Hahn and Edelman sought to maintain the existing lines. To this end, the Democratic minority agreed to a transfer of population from District 3 to District 2. Supervisor Edelman acknowledged that he and Supervisor Hahn had worked out a transfer of population from the heavily Hispanic Pico-Union area on the southern border of District 3 to the northern end of District 2. 139. Supervisor Edelman knew that if the 1971 boundary lines were kept intact, the Hispanic community was going to remain essentially the same in terms of its division among the districts. 140. The Board departed from its past redistricting practice in 1981 and approved a contract with The Rose Institute for State and Local Government, a private entity, to perform specialized services and produce redistricting data at a cost of $30,000. 141. The facilities at The Rose Institute were used primarily by persons working privately on behalf of Supervisor Dana, Schabarum, and Antonovich, including Joseph Shumate, conducting private redistricting research and analysis. 142. The Board reactivated the Supervi-sorial District Boundary Committee and charged the Committee with the responsibility for recommending a redistricting plan in accordance with the provisions of Sections 35000-35006 of the Elections Code and one which would ensure that ethnic minorities are equitably represented, and that city boundaries were respected as much as possible. 143. The five initial appointees to the Boundary Committee, Blake Sanborn, Robert Bush, Ron Smith, Alma Fitch, and Allan Hoffenblum, were persons who had close political ties to the appointing Supervisors or were persons who had been trusted employees and advisors to the Supervisors. All five individuals were non-Hispanic. 144. On July 8, 1981, representatives of Californios for Fair Representation, (hereinafter “Californios” or “CFR”), a coalition of Hispanic organizations active in the redistricting process, criticized the all-Anglo composition of the Committee and requested that it be expanded to include minority representatives, including at least one Hispanic and one black. 145. On July 14, 1981, the Board of Supervisors appointed five additional members to the Boundary Committee, Lauro Neri and Jesus Melendez, both Hispanic; Davis Lear and Robert Perkins, both black; and Dr. Frederico Quevedo, a Filipino. These additional appointees played a minor role in the redistricting process. None of the minority representatives or persons appointed to the Boundary Committee on July 14, 1981 had any previous experience in demography or the redistricting of elective bodies. 146. The Los Angeles County Coalition of CFR worked on redistricting plans for state, county and local jurisdictions within Los Angeles County and was permitted to use the facilities of the Rose Institute for the purpose of preparing their proposals. 147. Leticia Quezada was the chair of the Los Angeles County CFR chapter. 148. In considering different redistricting strategies, CFR declined to create a plan which included one district with a substantial Hispanic majority because they did not think that four Supervisors would vote for such a plan. CFR viewed a plan which included an Hispanic district as very threatening to incumbents since it would involve drastic shifts in population. 149. CFR instead opted to propose a plan that reduced the splintering of the Hispanic community and provided for two Hispanic “influence” districts: one with a bare Hispanic population majority in District 3 and an Hispanic growth district in District 1 with 42 percent Hispanic population. 150. Through various conversations with the Supervisors or their representatives, members of CFR developed an understanding of the objectives of the Supervisors for the redistricting process. Supervisor Edelman indicated that he wanted the San Diego Freeway to be the western boundary of District 3 and the Santa Monica Freeway to be the district’s southern boundary. Alma Fitch informed CFR that Supervisor Edelman was happy to represent the Hispanic community but that he did not believe that all the Hispanics should be in his district. Mike Lewis indicated in meetings with CFR that Supervisor Scha-barum was willing to transfer Hispanic population from District 1 to District 3 to create an Hispanic district. Specifically, the Supervisor was willing to lose Pico Rivera and South Gate, two majority Hispanic cities. 151. Boundary Committee members Hoffenblum and Smith each introduced plans with identical 50.2 percent Hispanic populations in Supervisorial District 3. The plans differed with respect to District 1. While the Californios plan increased the District 1 Hispanic population from 32 percent Hispanic to 42 percent, both the Hof-fenblum and Smith plans reduce the Hispanic population in District 1 to 31.3 percent and 31.7 percent Hispanic respectively. 152. By a 5-4 vote, the Committee recommended that the Board adopt the Hof-fenblum Plan. The Final Report of the Boundary Committee stated as to the Hof-fenblum Plan: This Plan increases the opportunity of Hispanics and Blacks by recognizing that a special community of interests exists for Hispanics and Blacks. Boundaries were developed to increase the electoral effectiveness of these two groups in the Second and Third Supervisorial districts. 153.Representatives of Supervisors Hahn and Edelman offered no proposals for plans during the course of the Committee’s meetings, and opposed all plans enlarging the Hispanic population in District 3 beyond the then-current district lines: 154.Besides increasing the Hispanic population in District 3, the Hoffenblum Plan reduced the Hispanic population in the districts of Supervisors Dana, Schabarum and Antonovich, particularly in Schaba-rum’s Supervisorial District 1, and the black populations in the districts of Dana and Antonovich. Black and Hispanic populations were added to Districts 3 and 2. The following tables show the changes in population statistics as illustrated by the Hoffenblum Plan from the then-existing boundaries. Current (1981) Boundaries — Pre-Redistricting Dist. Population % Black % Hispanic % 47,772 3.1 550,819 1,522,347 CO os bo to © 1 — 1 635,751 44.7 354,314 1,423,015 C£> 1 — 1 © to 44,868 2.8 669,246 1,577,877 CO ^ CO CO 140,585 9.7 236,518 1,445,286 M OS M © 4^ 75,033 5.0 254,830 1,509,132 H OS <£> to © CR Hoffenblum Plan Dist. Population % Black % Hispanic % 48,708 468,661 1,496,560 CO CO CO CO to o o i — * 691,655 384,721 1,495,727 (N1 CD t-(M to o o to 50,863 750,266 1,495,085 ^ CO OQ to to o o co 81,082 231,268 1,495,738 id lO H to o o 71,701 230,811 1,495,547 GO ^ H to o o 155. The Smith and Hoffenblum plans, while increasing District 3 to a bare majority, proposed a substantial decrease in the Hispanic population percentage in District 1. 156. The CFR plan, the Smith plan and the Hoffenblum plan all proposed shifting the City of Compton from District 4, the “coastal district,” to District 2, where most of the County’s black population was concentrated. 157. Smith and Hoffenblum opposed the CFR plan because the plan proposed increasing the Hispanic proportion in District 1 from 36 to 42 percent. Both Boundary Committee members perceived the CFR effort as intended to jeopardize the status of Supervisor Schabarum as well as that of the conservative majority. 158. Hoffenblum testified that one of the objectives of the Republican majority was to create an Hispanic seat without altering the ideological makeup of the Board. According to Hoffenblum, it was “self-evident” that if an Hispanic district was created in Supervisor Schabarum’s district it would impact on the Republican majority. 159. The proponents of the Smith and Hoffenblum plans sought to gain areas of Republican strength such as La Mirada, Arcadia, Bradbury in Districts 4 and 5, while losing increasing Hispanic areas such as Alhambra or the predominantly black Compton and other liberal areas of Santa Monica and Venice. 160. The Boundary Committee met officially on eight occasions between July 8 and August 12, 1981. 161. No Board member ever publicly advocated any of the plans introduced by members of the Boundary Commission, including the recommended Hoffenblum Plan or the CFR Plan. 162. Supervisor Edelman would not rule out the possibility that ethnic considerations played at least some part in the rejection by the Board majority of the CFR Plan. Moreover, the fact that CFR proposed a plan in which District 1 had a 42 percent Hispanic population was a possible basis for the rejection of the plan by the majority. Supervisor Schabarum would not accept a 45 or 50 percent Hispanic proportion in his district in 1981. 163. The Supervisors proposed no plans raising Hispanic population in any district beyond where it already remained by virtue of the 1971 boundary lines. Although the feasibility of establishing even a 50 percent Hispanic district was never disputed, no Supervisor ever publicly discussed or endorsed the idea. 164. The Court finds that in 1981 a district could have been devised which more fairly and adequately recognized Hispanic voting strength while complying with standard redistricting criteria. 165. On September 24, 1981, prior to the Board’s adoption of the challenged plan, Board members met, two at a time in a series of private meetings in the anteroom adjacent to the board room, where they tried to reach agreement on a plan. 166. On at least ten separate occasions, pairs of Supervisors entered the room and negotiated the final redistricting plan. 167. The Board rejected the Boundary Committee’s report. 168. According to the deposition of Mr. Schoeni: “The Boundary Committee report was received; the Board heard testimony; the Board set aside the Boundary Committee report and proceeded from a clean slate, if you will, with Supervisor Edel-man mediating and trying to gain as much in terms of population equity as was possible.” 169. Using the map which was in the anteroom, Supervisor Schabarum and Anto-novich discussed changes in the boundary between Districts 1 and 5, including the transfer of Sierra Madre. Schabarum and Antonovich did not discuss the Hoffenb-lum, Smith or CFR plans. 170. Mr. Schoeni drew proposed district boundaries on the map in the anteroom, and once a map was developed which purported to reflect a consensus of the Board, an immediate tabulation of the changes was performed and given to Board Chair, Supervisor Edelman. 171. On September 24, 1981, after Board members had reached an agreement on a plan, the Board met publicly and unanimously adopted this recent creation which had never been presented to the public. 172. Supervisor Schabarum testified that he had described the 1981 plan as “ho-hum” because it “just juggled the boundaries around a little bit to get the job done within the law.” 173. Supervisor Schabarum also testified that he thinks it “fundamentally un-American and unsound” to fashion district lines with the intent of permitting ethnic groups to be represented. 174. The Court finds that the Supervisors and their aides understood the potential for increasing Hispanic voting strength and sought to avoid the consequences of a redistricting plan designed to eliminate the fragmentation of the Hispanic population. (1) Intent of 1981 Redistricting 175. The plan adopted in 1981 retained the boundary between the First and the Third Supervisorial Districts, the districts that contain the largest proportions of Hispanics. In doing so, the 1981 Plan continued to split the Hispanic Core almost in half. 176. The Board appeared to ignore the three proposed plans which provided for a bare Hispanic population majority. 177. The Court finds that the Board of Supervisors, in adopting the 1981 redistricting plan, acted primarily with the objective of protecting and preserving the incumbencies of the five Supervisors or their political allies. 178. The Court finds that in 1981 the five members of the Board of Supervisors were aware that the plan which they eventually adopted would continue to fragment the Hispanic population and further impair the ability of Hispanics to gain representation on the Board. 179. The continued fragmentation of the Hispanic vote was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the adoption of the 1981 Plan. 180. The Court finds that during the 1981 redistricting process, the Supervisors knew that the protection of their five Anglo incumbencies was inextricably linked to the continued fragmentation of the Hispanic Core. 181. The Supervisors appear to have acted primarily on the political instinct of self-preservation. The Court finds, however, that the Supervisors also intended what they knew to be the likely result of their actions and a prerequisite to self-preservation — the continued fragmentation of the Hispanic Core and the dilution of Hispanic voting strength, D. SIZE AND GEOGRAPHIC COMPACTNESS OF HISPANIC COMMUNITY 1. 1980 Census Data 182. As stated supra, in Part C, 2, the 1980 Census reported that the total population of the County of Los Angeles was 7,477,503 persons of whom 2,066,103 or 27.6 percent were persons of Spanish origin. 183. According to full-count data from the 1980 Census, persons of Spanish origin were the majority of the population in all but three of the 229 contiguous census tracts comprising the Hispanic Core. 184. Dr. William P. O’Hare, a sociologist and demographer who is director of policy studies for the Population Reference Bureau, a non-profit research and educational organization in Washington, D.C., compiled a demographic profile of the 229 Hispanic Core census tracts using full-count tract-level reports of total population and voting age, plus a special tabulation of voting age citizens provided by the Census Bureau. These core census tracts had the following aggregate characteristics: Hispanic Population Core — 1980 Hispanic White Black Asian Total POP 1,204,279 cn CO t — I CO t- YAP 783,677 05 (M CM Cr-CO CVAP 458,306 ^ CO CO C<I LO 185.The Court finds that based on 1980 Census data, a supervisorial district can be drawn encompassing the Hispanic Core community so that the percentage of citizen voting age Hispanics in the districts would be such that Hispanics would have the potential to elect a candidate of their choice. While the Court agrees with defendants that plaintiffs’ experts, Dr. Grofman and Dr. Estrada, could not devise a plan with a voting age citizen majority on the basis of 1980 Census data that comports with the one man one vote rule, the Court does find it persuasive that the illustrative districts were just shy of the 50 percent mark, in the 44 to 46 percent range. 186.Further, this case presents precisely the situation anticipated by Justice O’Connor, in her concurring opinion in Gingles, 478 U.S. at 94-95, 106 S.Ct. at 2789, in which the unique demographic changes Los Angeles County has undergone and continues to undergo coupled with the lingering effects and history of discrimination in the County against Hispanics, preclude the application of “a single, universally applicable standard for measuring undiluted minority voting strength.” Id. The application of the bright line 50 percent requirement set forth by the Ninth Circuit in Romero v. City of Pomona, 883 F.2d 1418, 1427 (9th Cir.1989), would be inappropriate under these facts and circumstances. 187. Therefore, even if this Court were to agree with defendants’ contention that current population data is less reliable than the 1980 Census, the Court would still find that the 1981 Plan violated Section 2 of the Act based on the totality of the circumstances delineated in these findings. 188. The evidence shows that the Board of Supervisors knowingly chose to draw and adopt a plan that minimized the voting potential of the County’s Hispanic population. This minimization of Hispanic voting strength was achieved by fragmenting the Hispanic Core. 189. The distribution of tracts among current supervisorial districts reflects this conscious minimization: Districts Tracts TPOP HPOP % VAP HVAP 77 433,173 299,648 69% 277,169 174,664 63% h 50 226,318 155,332 69% 153,645 97,516 63% to 104 538,093 418,750 78% 348,257 253,564 73% co 2 6,694 3,749 56% 4,606 2,278 49% cn Total 233 1,204,279 877,478 73% 783,677 528,021 67.4% Districts Tracts TCVAP HCVAP % 77 190,705 95,950 50% H 50 68,954 22,925 33% <M 104 195,445 117,077 60% CO 2 3,202 1,374 43% LO Total 233 458,306 237,326 52% 190. No citizenship data by the Census Bureau with respect to the 1980 decennial census was available in time for the 1981 redistricting process. 2. Growth in Hispanic Population Since 1980 191. The demographics of Los Angeles Count