## Facts

- The City of Aurora, Illinois elected a 12-member council: 10 aldermen from single-member wards and 2 at-large aldermen.
- Based on the 2000 Census, Aurora’s population was 32.6% Hispanic, but its Hispanic citizen voting-age population was 16.3%.
- After redistricting following the 2000 Census, only one ward reliably elected Latino candidates; another ward was about 66% Latino but twice elected a Black alderman.
- At the time of the record, 2 of 12 aldermen were Hispanic (one elected and one appointed).
- Latino residents sued under § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, alleging the ward map diluted Latino voting strength.
- Plaintiffs sought an injunction requiring ward boundaries to be redrawn to concentrate Latinos into three wards likely to elect Latino-preferred candidates.
- Plaintiffs argued that a ward needed about 70% Latino total population to elect Latino candidates, citing lower citizenship rates and younger age structure; they disputed the City’s 65% “effective district” rule of thumb.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the City, reasoning that Latino representation was roughly proportional to Latino citizen voting-age population and that election of non-Latino candidates in heavily Latino wards suggested limited racial bloc voting rather than dilution.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence under § 2 of the Voting Rights Act to create a genuine dispute that Aurora’s ward map diluted Latino voting strength.
2. Whether § 2 required Aurora to redraw wards to create additional “Latino-effective” districts when such districts could be engineered by concentrating Latino residents.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the City.
- The court held that § 2 requires an electoral process “equally open” to minority voters and does not require maximizing the number of districts likely to elect minority candidates.
- The court concluded plaintiffs failed to present evidence that the existing plan reduced Latino voters’ opportunity, as compared to realistic, non-gerrymandered alternatives.
- The court treated proportionality (Latinos being about 16% of citizen voting-age population and holding 2 of 12 seats) as evidence against dilution.
- The court found the record consistent with cross-racial voting and influence in multiple wards, including a heavily Latino ward electing a non-Latino candidate, which undercut a showing of legally significant racial bloc voting tied to the map.
- The court rejected plaintiffs’ reliance on a 70% threshold as insufficiently supported to establish dilution or to justify court-ordered redistricting.

## Legal Principles

- § 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits vote dilution only when minority voters, under the totality of circumstances, have less opportunity than others to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice.
- § 2 does not impose a duty to maximize minority electoral success or to create the greatest possible number of majority-minority districts.
- A vote-dilution plaintiff must present competent evidence that realistic, neutral districting configurations would yield materially greater minority electoral opportunity and that the challenged plan denies that opportunity.
- Districts where a minority group can materially affect outcomes without controlling a majority (“influence districts”) may be relevant to whether minority voters have equal electoral opportunity.
- The election of non-minority candidates in districts with large minority populations can support an inference of cross-racial coalitions or limited racial bloc voting, rather than vote dilution attributable to district lines.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld Aurora’s ward map because plaintiffs did not produce evidence that the plan denied Latino voters equal electoral opportunity, and § 2 did not require the City to redraw boundaries to create additional Latino-effective districts merely because such districts could be constructed.


Gonzalez v. City of Aurora, 535 F.3d 594 (7th Cir. 2008)