2002_0325_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

point we Carmot justify combining the two cities and departing from a long history of separate identities and separate congressional districts. The strongest argument advanced in support ofj oining Minneapolis and St. Paul has been that doing so would create a minority opportunity district � that is, a district in which more than 30% of its population would consist of racial minorities. By adding the population of every racial minority defined by the U.S.-Census and living in a combined Minneapolis/St. Paul district, the district would have an overall minority population of 39% and a minority voting age population of 30.8%. However, although' "a court may not presume bloc voting within even a single minority groin," Crowe v.Emison,507 U.S. 251) 41 (1993) (citing Thornburg V.tingles,478 U.S. 30, 46 (1955)), no definitive proof has been offered that such diverse groups have either similar interests or tend to vote as a bloc. Additionally, different minority groups have expressed different opinions regarding the advisability of creating an urban core district. While some preferred a single minority opportunity district, leaving the maximum minority population for any other district at or under 12% of the total population, others preferred having two districts that would each have at least a 20% overall minority population. Compare St. Paul Hearing supra, at 49-50, 58 with St. Paul Hearing supra, at 54, 72. Without proof that combining Minneapolis and St. Paul would benefit the majority of minority groups, and given our conclusion that the other proposed reasons do not warrant putting Minneapolis and St. Paul in the same district, we may not purposefully create a minority opportunity district solely for the sake of the Voting Rights Act. For all these reasons, we opt to leave Minneapolis and St. Paul in two separate districts surrounded by their first-ring suburbs. We have thereby created a plan with three predominantly -9-