## Facts

- Texas elected state district trial judges in several large counties through partisan, at-large, countywide elections.
- Latino and Black voters and organizations challenged these election systems in multiple counties, alleging dilution of minority voting strength under § 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
- Minority voters generally supported Democratic judicial candidates, while many white voters supported Republican candidates in the challenged elections.
- A federal district court found § 2 violations in several counties and ordered structural remedies (such as single-member districts or other changes).
- The Fifth Circuit granted rehearing en banc to review whether the record established vote dilution “on account of race or color” in these judicial elections.

## Issues

1. Whether at-large, countywide elections for Texas state trial judges denied or abridged minority voters’ electoral opportunity in violation of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
2. Whether proof of “racially polarized voting” under the Gingles framework requires showing that race caused divergent voting patterns, rather than showing only a statistical association between race and candidate preference.
3. How § 2’s vote-dilution framework applies to partisan elections for judicial offices.

## Decision

- The en banc Fifth Circuit reversed the district court and held plaintiffs did not prove a § 2 vote-dilution violation in the challenged judicial election systems.
- The court required plaintiffs to show that race-based considerations caused the observed polarization; correlation between race and voting preferences was insufficient when other factors (such as party affiliation) better explained the results.
- The court recognized § 2 can apply to judicial elections, but emphasized the distinct nature of judicial office when assessing minority voters’ asserted inability to “elect representatives of their choice.”
- Under the totality of circumstances, the court concluded the record did not establish minority vote dilution attributable to race, given the prominence of partisan alignment in the voting patterns.

## Legal Principles

- A § 2 results claim is assessed under the totality of circumstances and commonly uses the Gingles preconditions: (1) minority group size/compactness for a workable district; (2) minority political cohesion; and (3) majority bloc voting usually defeating the minority-preferred candidate.
- In this circuit’s approach, “racially polarized voting” for the second and third Gingles preconditions requires evidence that race, not nonracial variables such as partisan affiliation, caused the divergent voting behavior.
- When voting patterns are more convincingly explained by party preference in partisan elections, proof of different candidate preferences by racial group does not by itself establish the race-based bloc voting necessary for § 2 liability.
- § 2 may reach judicial elections, but the inquiry must account for the judicial role and whether the evidence shows diminished electoral opportunity attributable to race.

## Conclusion

The en banc Fifth Circuit held that plaintiffs challenging at-large Texas judicial elections under § 2 failed to prove that race-based considerations caused the observed polarized voting, concluding that partisan affiliation better explained the divergent voting patterns and therefore reversing the district court’s finding of vote dilution.


League of United Latin Am. Citizens, Council No. 4434 v. Clements, 999 F.2d 831 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc)