WPC{ Y(!!|w{1s4_+,k>3xA !bcʺ)*|cC R6ḞO00fG_aRfOL 4< m(OM^9Ai\lP,k!9ֽABfс,[n/l"Ҭa,.i*"A[ݎ#=XόUO6@O$ ,# b L͉ b7 :WlT5NO2͞|V#zX&4N$_'S"7~yV/fЈGwV*5R~Q$(aNJ)&:jYZ474M`¿JY0DbCH]+3'#^A5!%&gѥ櫮@禋eq v.fE# % 0D 0G U:` 0 U8B nTz N UN UF^ dwp4tEfa m 0U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0f 0= 0C 0T 0+ 0 0 0 0i 01 0 B 0@ 0 0 0 0 0Q 0! 0! 0" 00]# 0<# 0# 0>$ 0v$ 0`;% 0`% 0`% 0`[& 0`& 08' 0S' 02%( 0W( 0:S) 0Y) 0_) 0 E* 0jO+ 0, B*=. D/g. D+. 0. D/E0 0t0 06B1 0x1 0:2 0^2 0<3 0NT3U63U>3U*4[@46^86Z:F;;`= @JMbTO\O 1uQ 72Q 0cQb"R*RbTy T TU$FYej\_re=jSjpm!hohohohohoIssssuuuuuuuxHP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0X(#$  0  ($XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(F:2#$ !XZ(XXX        0  <4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@ (A Z6Times New Roman RegularQ 9Z+.Courier New Regularq[/s M/y File3|x8TABLE AU*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5   d( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7F(X7  ?S%2A`Arial?  SR\  `&Times New RomanS7G(X7&  d dE)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7I(X7  ?S%2A`Arial?  SR\  `&Times New RomanS7G(X7E)2dxd0KS.SampleKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  (O$<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial Q #$XUXXX      6    _ԀTheamendmentwasmeant,inpart,tooverturntheSupreme  Court'sinterpretationoftheVRAinCityofMobilev.Bolden,446  U.S.55,61(1980).SeeP.McCrary,BringingEqualitytoPower: \ HowtheFederalCourtsTransformedtheElectoralStructureof 2 SouthernPolitics,19601990,5U.Pa.J.Const.L.665,697699 X (2003).  #$XUXXX      5    _ԀThecomplaintdoesnotspecifythevotingagepopulation  demographicsoftheoldSenateDistrict9,nordoesitspecifythe  percentageofthepopulationthatiswhiteineithertheoldSenate \  District9orthenewSenateDistrict2.  #$XUXXX      4    _ԀThecomplaintmakesadistinctionbetweenHispanicvoters  and"NonHispanicAfricanAmerican"voters.Weuse"African  American"todescribethelattergroup,asdistinguishedfrom \ HispanicAfricanAmericans,whomthecomplaintcountsasmembersof 2 theHispaniccommunity. , #$XUXXX      2    _ԀXUXXXUԀWeexpressourappreciationtoamicifortheirvaluable  assistance.#XUXXXU# coalitional HarvGingles  #$XUXXX      11    _ԀOndefendants'theory,adiscrete,geographicallycompact  racialgroup(here,AfricanAmericans)isnotentitledtoavail  itselfof2ofthe_VRA_Ԁuntilitislargeenoughtoconstitutea \ numericalmajorityinanygivendistrict. V #$XUXXX      13    _ԀButseeBrewer,876F.2dat454(requiringamajorityeven  forpluralityelections,reasoningthata"pluralityfeatureisof  coursemoreresponsivetominorityvotergroups");McNeilv. \ SpringfieldParkDist.,851F.2d937,94344(7thCir.1988) 2 (rejectinganyshowingoflessthananabsolutemajorityasunduly X speculative). #$XUXXX      14    _ԀOurdissentingcolleagueengagesinthesortoffactual  predictionsthatcourtsareforbiddentoindulgeonamotionto  dismiss.SeeGonzalezGonzalezv.UnitedStates,257F.3d31,37 \ (1stCir.2001)(refusingtoengagein"speculation"onappealfrom 2 aRule12(b)(6)dismissalandinsteadassumingthetruthofthe X avermentsinthecomplaint).Thedissentassumesthataminimum . levelofcrossovervotingof32%willberequiredfortheAfrican   Americanminoritytoelectacandidateofitschoice,andit   assumesthatonlytwocandidatecontestsarerelevant.Itassumes `  thattheAfricanAmericanvoters'inabilitytoelecttheir 6   preferredcandidate"canmuchmorereadilybeattributedto  \  candidatespecificissues"thantothereductioninthe  2  representationoftheAfricanAmericancommunityinthepolitical   process.Itassumesthatplaintiffswillestablishnohistoryof   discriminationagainstblackcitizensinthepoliticalprocess.It d   assumesthattherewillnotbesufficientblocvotingbyHispanic  votersaftertheredistrictingtodefeattheAfricanAmerican  community'scandidateofchoice. \   Further,thedissentassumesthat"whitesandHispanicswould 2 havetocastalmosthalfofthevotesneededforasuccessful X senatorialcandidacy."Inapluralityrace,asthedissent . apparentlyconcedes,thatisalmostcertainlyuntrue.Evenina   twocandidaterace,itmaybeuntruegiven,forexample,low   overallvoterturnout,highAfricanAmericanturnout,andAfrican `  Americanblocvoting.Similarly,thedissentassumesthata5% 6   reductionintheAfricanAmericanpopulationisinsignificant.But  \  theformerAfricanAmericanstatesenatormayhavelostthe  2  electionbythat5%.     Eachoftheseassumptionsreflectsfactualinferencesthat,   bylaw,mustbemadeinplaintiffs'favoronamotiontodismiss. d  UnitedStatesv._AVX_ԀCorp.,962F.2d108,114(1stCir.1992).  #$XUXXX      1    _ԀWhilethelossoftheincumbent,CharlesD.Walton,in  SenateDistrict9isnotpartoftheplaintiffs'complaint,wetake  judicialnoticeofthiselectoraloutcome.Thefactofhislossis \ undisputedandhasbeenreferredtobytheparties.Itisalsoan 2 easyinferencefromthecomplaintthattheAfricanAmericanvoters' X candidateofchoicewouldloseafterandasaresultofthe . redistrictingprocess.  #$XUXXX      3    _ԀManyofthedefendantsoriginallysuedintheirofficial  capacitiesnolongeroccupytheirrespectiveoffices.Thecurrent  incumbentshavebeensubstitutedasdefendantsfortheir \ predecessorsinoffice.SeeFed.R.App.P.43(c)(2).- -  #$XUXXX      18    _ԀThisestimateisconservative.Totheextentthatvoter  registrationorvoterturnoutdiffers,orthatAfricanAmericans  arenotcompletelymonolithicintheirvotingpreferences,the \ neededthresholdsbecomehardertoachieve.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)`i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  - -  #$XUXXX      8    _ԀTherecentSupremeCourtdecisioninGeorgiav.Ashcroft,  123_S.Ct_.2498(2003),consideredinfluencedistrictsandcrossover  districtsinthe5context,butdidnotresolvetherelationship \ betweenthetwo.- - o #$XUXXX      16    _ԀThepartiesagreethatthesecondGinglespreconditionis  metbytheplaintiffs'pleadingthat"AfricanAmericanvotersin  theStateofRhodeIslandarepoliticallycohesive."  #$XUXXX      19    _Ԁ_My_Ԁcolleagueswritethat"[_i]n_Ԁthiscase,itisundisputed  thataminoritygroup'spreferredcandidate,anincumbent,failed  towinreelectioninthefirstelectionafterthestatelegislature \ adoptedaredistrictingplanthatdecreasedthepercentage 2 representationofthatminorityinthecandidate'shomeelectoral X district."Maj.Op.at34.Thatisnotarelevantconsideration. . Whentheappellantsservedtheiramendedcomplaint(May14,2002)    andwhenthedistrictcourtdismissedthecase(September9,2002),  noelectionshadyetbeenheldundertheredistrictingplan.  #$XUXXX      17    _ԀThedissent'scitationtoAbramsv.Johnson,521U.S.74,  9293(1997),doesnotassistit.Abramswasdecidedaftertrial  onafullrecord.Therecordrevealedthattherewas,overtime, \ anincreasedgeneralwillingnessofwhitevoterstovoteforblack 2 candidates,andacorrespondingdecreaseinracialpolarization. X TheAbramsCourtdidnotpurporttoestablishamathematicallitmus . testforscreeningcasesunderthethirdGinglespreconditionona   motiontodismiss. [ #$XUXXX      20    _ԀGiventhewidespreadpopularityofpluralityelection  systems,theSupremeCourtmustcertainlyhavetakentheir  existenceintoaccountinformulatingtheGinglespreconditions. \ Cf.Voinovich,507U.S.at157(applyingtheGinglespreconditions 2 withoutmakinganyallowanceforOhio'suseofapluralityvoting X system).Ithereforeseenoreasonwhyweshouldnotadheretothe . SupremeCourt'srenditionofthefirstGinglespreconditionwithout   engaginginrankspeculationaboutthepossibilityofmultiple   candidacies.  #$XUXXX      9    _ԀCrossoverdistrictswhereplaintiffsallegeanabilityto  electalsomaybeconfusedwithathirdtypeofclaim,a"minority  coalition"claim,inwhichtwoseparateminoritygroupsallegethat \ adistrictcouldbeformedinwhichtheycouldjoinforcestoelect 2 arepresentative.SeeDeGrandy,512U.S.at1020(describingsuch X aVRAclaim);ConcernedCitizensv.HardeeCountyBd.,906F.2d . 524,52627(11thCir.1990)(indicatingthatminoritycoalition   claimsmeetthefirstGinglesprecondition);Brewerv.Ham,876   F.2d448,453(5thCir.1989)(same).ButseeNixonv.Kent `  County,76F.3d1381,1392(6thCir.1996)(enbanc)(rejectinga 6   minoritycoalitionclaim).  \    Wetakenopositiononthatissue.Plaintiffsdonotallege  2  thattheyandanotherminoritygroupformaminoritycoalitionand   thatsuchacoalitionmayqualifyasa"class"under2.Rather,   thissuitappearstopositthattheinterestsofAfricanAmerican d  votershavebeenpittedagainsttheinterestsofHispanicvoters. h #$XUXXX      21    _ԀSuchasituationmayoccur,forexample,whereevidenceof  intentionalvotedilutionexists,e.g.,Garzav.CountyofLos  Angeles,918F.2d763,77072(9thCir.1990);Armourv.Ohio,775 \ F.Supp.1044,106062(N.D.Ohio1991),oraminoritygroup 2 comprisesnearly50%ofthepopulationofaparticulardistrict, X e.g.,Martinezv.Bush,234F.Supp.2d1275,1299(S.D.Fla.2002) . (threejudgecourt)(percuriam),orthedemographictrendlines   aresuchthattheaffectedminoritygroupreasonablycanbe   expectedtoattainmajoritystatusinthenearfuture,e.g., `  Solomonv.LibertyCounty,899F.2d1012,1018n.7(11thCir.1990) 6   (enbanc)(_Kravitch_,J.,speciallyconcurring).    #$XUXXX      22    _ԀTheappellants'argumentnecessarilypresupposesthatthis  crossovervotingpeaksatapointbelow37%.Thatisapurely  arbitraryfigureand,assuch,neednotbecredited(evenfor \ purposesofamotiontodismiss).See,e.g.,DartmouthReviewv. 2 DartmouthColl.,889F.2d13,16(1stCir.1989)(warningthat X courtsshouldbewaryof"unsupportedconclusions,subjective . characterizations,andproblematicsuppositions"whenreviewing   dismissalordersunderRule12(b)(6)).  #$XUXXX      7    _ԀWeuse"crossover"inaspecializedsensewithregardto  racialblocs.Thetermisalsousedinadifferentsensewhen  membersofonepoliticalpartycrossovertovoteintheother \ party'sprimary.SeeEasleyv.Cromartie,532U.S.234,245 2 (2001).  #$XUXXX      23    _ԀTheappellantsdociteonecase,OldPersonv.Cooney,230  F.3d1113(9thCir.2000),thatinvolvessinglememberdistricts.  There,theNinthCircuitfoundwhiteblocvotingbecausewhite \ votinginexcessof60%defeatedminoritycandidatesinmost 2 elections.Id.at112427.Thatcasewasnotdecidedbasedonthe X rateofcrossovervoting,but,rather,ontheregularitywithwhich . thewhitemajorityhadbandedtogethertodefeatminority   candidates.Seeid.at112728(distinguishingAbramsv.Johnson,   521U.S.74,9293(1997),onthatveryground).Forthatreason, `  theNinthCircuitneverspecifiedwhatrateofcrossovervoting 6   actuallyexisted. ? #$XUXXX      15    _ԀWereachadeterminationonlywithregardtocrossover  districts,thesoletypeofinfluenceclaimpresentedinthis  appeal.Wereachnoconclusionconcerningothertypesofinfluence \ claims,which,iftheyarerecognized,mayrequireadifferent 2 applicationoftheGinglespreconditionsanddifferentlimiting X principles.  #$XUXXX      12    _ԀConsonantwithitsholdingthattheGinglespreconditions  areinsomeformapplicabletosinglememberdistricts,theSupreme  Courthasconsistentlyavoidedapplyingthefirstpreconditionto \ challengestosuchdistricts.SeeDe_Grandy_,512U.S.at1009 2 (assumingthefirstpreconditionissatisfied);_Voinovich_,507U.S. X  at158(same);_Growe_,507U.S.at41(same).  #$XUXXX      10    _ԀUnder_5,_ԀtheAttorneyGeneraloftheUnitedStatesmust  preclearacoveredjurisdiction's"standard,practice,or  procedure."42U.S.C.1973c.Preclearancedependsonwhether \ thechange"wouldleadtoaretrogressioninthepositionofracial 2 minoritieswithrespecttotheireffectiveexerciseofthe X electoralfranchise."Beerv.UnitedStates,425U.S.130,141 . (1976). !XUXXX  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * ! X&XXXU {X X&     =UXdd==UXXdXd=UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals  {  FortheFirstCircuit    XUX   A') ` dE< ` A      `     h No.022204 K    @@dd HAROLD_METTS_;JEANWIGGINS;BRYANEVANS;STEPHANIECRUZ;  G  URBANLEAGUE;NAACPPROVIDENCE;    BLACKAMERICANCITIZENSPOLITICALACTIONCOMMITTEE,   @@Plaintiffs,Appellants, O  @@tt)v. K  WILLIAMJ.MURPHY,SpeakeroftheHouseofRepresentatives;  ROGERN.BEGIN,inhisofficialcapacityasStateBoardof } ElectionsChairman;MATTHEWA.BROWN,SecretaryofState; S JOSEPHA._MONTALBANO_,SenateMajorityLeader, )y Defendants,Appellees, % @@ DONALDL.0 @ _CARCIERI_,Governor;  CHARLES_FOGARTY_,Lt.Governorand W PresidingOfficeroftheSenate, -} @@XX%Defendants @ . ) A') ` dE<` A  @@ddAPPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTFORTHE j  DISTRICTOFRHODEISLAND @ ! @@dd[Hon.ErnestC.Torres,ChiefU.S.DistrictJudge] !<# A') ` dE<#` A #% @@'Before }$' @@((Selya,CircuitJudge, )&y!) Stahl,SeniorCircuitJudge, &O"* andLynch,CircuitJudge. '%#+ A') ` dE<)` A )$-       Anita_Hodgkiss_,Lawyers'CommitteeforCivilRightsUnderLaw, f*%/ withwhom_Sunil_ԀR._Kulkarni_,Morrison&_Foerster_Ԁ_LLP_,_Kelli_ <+&0 Reynolds,NAACPLegalDepartment,andBruceG.Pollockwereon ,b'1 brief,forappellants. ,8(2  -)3? _   JosephM.FernandezandGoldenberg&MuriLLPonbrieffor  RhodeIslandAffiliate,AmericanCivilLibertiesUnion,amicus  curiae. \   MarleneTwaddellonbriefforPuertoRicanPoliticalAction X CommitteeandDirectActionforRightsandEquality,amicicuriae. .   JohnA.Tarantino,withwhomPatriciaK.Rocha,VictoriaM.   Almeida,andAdlerPollock&SheehanP.C.wereonbrief,for `  appelleeSenateMajorityLeader. 6     RichardB.WoolleyandThomasA.Palombo,AssistantAttorneys  2  General,onbriefforappelleeSecretaryofState.     NormandG.Benoit,EugeneG.Bernado,IIandPartridgeSnow& d  HahnLLPonbriefforappelleeSpeakeroftheHouseof :  Representatives. `    RaymondA.MarcaccioonbriefforappelleeChairmanofthe   StateBoardofElections.  *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  dd %  SIx  @37921 @SOctober28,2003 N  RHC$t"  @37921  @ R(x  (  * !    AUXdXXd_A e8UXXdXXd8mOY=UXXdXd=   ` LYNCH,CircuitJudge .AgroupofAfricanAmericanvoters  andrelatedorganizationsbroughtachallengeunder2ofthe x VotingRightsAct,42U.S.C.1973(2000),totheRhodeIsland $t statesenateredistrictingplanadoptedin2002.Theyallegethat   althoughAfricanAmericansdidnotconstituteanumericalmajority |  inanystatesenatedistrictbeforeredistricting,theyhave ( x  historicallyhadtheabilitytoelectarepresentativeoftheir $  choicewiththehelpofcrossovervotesinoneoftheformer   districts.Theyclaimthatasaresultoftheredistrictingplan, ,|  thisopportunityhasbeenadverselyaffected(indeed,eliminated) ( bythereductionoftheAfricanAmericanpercentageintherelevant  district.Afterthedistrictswereredrawn,theircandidateof 0 choice,atthattimeanincumbent,losthisseatintheDemocratic , Partyprimary.Becauseofthemakeupofthenewlyconfigured  district,thevictorintheprimarywaseffectivelyassuredof 4 beingthevictorinthegeneralelection.\ #  1       0    ` ThedistrictcourtdismissedtheclaimunderFed.R.Civ.   P.12(b)(6)becausetheAfricanAmericangroupcouldnotforma 8!" numericalmajorityinanydistrictandbecausethatgroupwould "4$ requirecrossovervotestoelectacandidateofitschoice.Under $& thestandardforRule12(b)(6)dismissal,whichpermitsdismissal  ofacomplaint"onlyifitisclearthatnoreliefcouldbegranted \ underanysetoffactsthatcouldbeprovedconsistentwiththe X allegations,"Hishonv.King&Spalding,467U.S.69,73(1984),   wereversethedismissaloftheclaim.W #  2       `  @tt) I.   \     ` OnMay2,2002,agroupofindividualplaintiffsand $  advocacyorganizationschallengedtheredistrictingplaninthe   UnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheDistrictofRhodeIslandunder ,|  2oftheVotingRightsAct(VRA),42U.S.C.1973.The ( plaintiffsnamedasdefendantstheGovernor,theLieutenant  Governor,theSpeakeroftheHouseofRepresentatives,theState 0 BoardofElectionsChairman,theSecretaryofState,andtheSenate , MajorityLeader. ]< #  3           ` WhenreviewingthedismissalofacomplaintunderFed. 4 R.Civ.P.12(b)(6),"[w]eacceptastruethewellpleadedfactual 0 allegationsofthecomplaint,drawallreasonableinferences   therefromintheplaintiff'sfavoranddeterminewhetherthe 8!" complaint,soread,setsforthfactssufficienttojustifyrecovery "4$ onanycognizabletheory."Martinv.AppliedCellularTech.,Inc., $& 284F.3d1,6(1stCir.2002).Thus,thefollowingfactsare  derivedfromtheplaintiffs'amendedcomplaint. \    ` OnFebruary23,2002,theRhodeIslandGeneralAssembly X votedtopassaredistrictingplanforthestatesenate.An   alterationwasnecessaryfortworeasons.First,therewasaneed `  toadjustthesenatedistrictstoaccountforshiftsinstate  \  population.Second,arecentstateconstitutionalamendment   reducedthenumberofsenatedistrictsfromfiftytothirtyeight, d  necessitatinganentirelynewdistrictmapwithlargerdistricts. `     ` Thenewsenatedistrictplanwashighlycontroversial.   Therewereconcernsfromthebeginningthattheplanmightmakeit h moredifficultforAfricanAmericanvoterstoelectcandidatesof d theirchoice.Variouscommunitygroupsandindividualstestified  beforethelegislatureagainsttheplanonthegroundsthatit l wouldnotgiveAfricanAmericanvoters"anequalopportunityto h electcandidatesoftheirchoice"tothestatesenate,andthatthe  planunnecessarilyabridgedthevotingrightsofAfricanAmerican p  votersinviolationoftheVRA.Nonetheless,thesenate's !l" judiciarycommittee"approvedtheplan[]withouttakingthetimeto "$ evaluatetheproposalsandcommentsofthoseopposedtotheplan." t$& Itisfairtoinfer,giventhattherewasonlyoneAfricanAmerican  &p!( senator,thattheplanwasapprovedovertheobjectionsofthe '#* AfricanAmericancommunityanditsrepresentative.Governor x)$, LincolnAlmondrefusedtosignthelegislation,explicitly $+t&. mOY m m  questioningitsfairnesstoRhodeIsland'sminoritypopulations.  Hedidnotvetoit,however,andtheplanbecamelawwithouthis \ signatureonFebruary23,2002. X    ` ThepopulationofRhodeIslandisfourpercentAfrican   American,V #  4      ׀overhalfofwhomliveinProvidence.Thestate's `  AfricanAmericancitizenscontinuetosufferfrompastofficial  \  discriminationinhousing,education,healthcare,andemployment.   Bycommonmeasuresofsocioeconomicstatus,educational d  attainment,andaccesstopoliticalresources,theycontinuetolag `  behindtherestofthestate.OnlyoneAfricanAmericanstate   senator,thechosencandidateoftheAfricanAmericancommunity, h haseverbeenelectedinRhodeIsland;thatsenator,CharlesD. d Walton,representedtheoldSenateDistrict9untilthe  redistricting.Accordingtothecensusdatafromtheyear2000, l thatdistrictwas25.69%AfricanAmericanand41.08%Hispanic. h MuchofProvidence'sAfricanAmericanpopulationisnowwithinthe  newSenateDistrict2.Thepopulationofthisnewdistrictis p  21.42%AfricanAmericanand46.74%Hispanic,andthevotingage !l" populationis21.43%AfricanAmericanand43.12%Hispanic.U #  5       "$    ` PlaintiffspleadthattheAfricanAmericanvotersin  RhodeIslandarethemselvespoliticallycohesive,andthattheyare \ notcohesivewithHispanicorwhitevoters.Althoughno X alternativeplanswereappendedtothecomplaint,plaintiffsclaim   thatitispossibletodividethestateintothirtyeightdistricts `  suchthatonesenatedistrictwouldhaveapopulationthatisat  \  leasttwentysixpercentAfricanAmerican,andinsuchadistrict   itwouldbepossiblefor"anAfricanAmericancandidatepreferred d  byAfricanAmericanvoters"towinelectionduetowhiteand `  Hispaniccrossoversupport.However,ifadistrictislessthan   twentysixpercentAfricanAmerican,"[t]hewhiteandHispanic h communitiesvotesufficientlyinablocusuallytodefeatthe d candidateofchoiceofAfricanAmericanvoters."  @88) II.  l    ` Withoutfilingaresponsivepleading,thedefendants 4 quicklymovedtodismissonthebasisofFed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6) 0 forfailuretostateaclaim.Theyarguedthatthecomplaintfails   toallegethatitispossibletocreateasenatedistrictinwhich 8!" AfricanAmericansareamajority,andthatsuchanallegationis "4$ requiredbyThornburgv.Gingles,478U.S.30(1986),andits $& progeny. <&!(    ` OnSeptember9,2002,thedistrictcourtgrantedthe '8#* defendants'motion.Mettsv.Almond,217F.Supp.2d252(D.R.I. )$, 2002).Thedistrictcourtanalyzedtheplaintiffs'complaintas  bothan"abilitytoinfluence"claimandan"abilitytoelect" \ claim.Astotheformer,itfoundthatinfluenceclaimsarenot X cognizableunder2.Id.at257.Astothelatter,itheldthat   Ginglesrequiresthataminoritygroupbeabletoconstitutea `  majoritywithoutthehelpofcrossovervotesfromothergroups.  \  Id.at260.Finally,thedistrictcourtalsodismissedthe   complaintbaseduponafailuretodemonstratethatthemajorityin d  SenateDistrict9votesasabloc,anotherrequirementsetoutin `  Gingles.Id.at26061.Theplaintiffsappealthedismissalof   theirclaim. h @( III.  d A.0  StandardofReview,(#(#    ` Wereviewdenovoadistrictcourt'sdismissalofa  complaintforfailuretostateaclaimunderRule12(b)(6), 4 MoralesVillalobosv.GarciaLlorens,316F.3d51,52(1stCir. 0 2003),takingwellpleadedfactsinthecomplaintastrueand   makingallreasonableinferencesinfavoroftheplaintiffs. 8!" Arrudav.Sears,Roebuck&Co.,310F.3d13,18(1stCir.2002). "4$ Rule12(b)(6)permitsdismissalofacomplaintfor"failureofthe $& pleadingtostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted."For <&!( thepurposesofRule12(b)(6),"itisenoughforaplaintiffto '8#* sketchascenariowhich,ifsubsequentlyfleshedoutbymeansof )$, appropriatefacts,couldsupportanactionableclaim."Garrettv. @+&. TandyCorp.,295F.3d94,105(1stCir.2002).Wemustreverseif  theplaintiffshaveincludedintheircomplaintwellpleadedfacts \ which,takenastrue,"justifyrecoveryonanysupportablelegal X theory."Cruzv.Melecio,204F.3d14,21(1stCir.2000).   B.0  LegalBackground` (#(#    ` Section2oftheVRAforbidsany"votingqualificationor  \  prerequisitetovotingorstandard,practice,orprocedure...   whichresultsinadenialorabridgementoftherightofany d  citizenoftheUnitedStatestovoteonaccountofraceorcolor." `  42U.S.C.1973(a).Firstpassedin1965,itwasamendedin1982   tospecifythatthetestisoneofadverseimpacttominority h communitiesanddoesnotrequireashowingofdiscriminatory d intent.T #  6      ׀Pub.L.No.89110,tit.I,2,79Stat.437,437  (1965),amendedbyPub.L.No.97205,3,96Stat.131,134 l (1982).Aviolationisestablished"if,basedonthetotalityof h circumstances,itisshownthat...aclassofcitizens...  [has]lessopportunitythanothermembersoftheelectorateto p  participateinthepoliticalprocessandtoelectrepresentatives !l" oftheirchoice."42U.S.C.1973(b). "$    ` TheSupremeCourtfirstconstruedthepostamendmentVRA t$& inThornburgv.Gingles,supra.Gingleswasachallengetoa  redistrictingplanthatincludedmultimemberdistricts,whichare \ legislativedistrictsfromwhichmorethanonerepresentativeis X electedatatime.478U.S.at35.TheGinglescourtestablished   three"preconditions"foraVRAchallengetomultimemberdistricts. `  0  0` (#(#First,theminoritygroupmustbeabletodemonstrate  \  thatitissufficientlylargeandgeographicallycompact  2  toconstituteamajorityinasinglememberdistrict..   ..Second,theminoritygroupmustbeabletoshowthat   itispoliticallycohesive....Third,theminority d  mustbeabletodemonstratethatthewhitemajorityvotes :  sufficientlyasabloctoenableit...usuallyto `  defeattheminority'spreferredcandidate.6` (#` (# JId.at5051.TheSupremeCourthas,insubsequentcases,held  thatsomeformofthesethreepreconditionsshouldalsoapplyto > challengestosinglememberlegislativedistricts.Growev. : Emison,507U.S.25,4041(1993)(applyingthesecond  precondition);seealsoVoinovichv.Quilter,507U.S.146,15758 B (1993)(applyingthethirdprecondition).TheCourthassummarized > thethreeinshorthandtermsas"compactness/numerousness,minority  cohesionorblocvoting,andmajorityblocvoting."XUXX XUJohnsonv.De F ! Grandy,512U.S.997,1011(1994)# XUXXXUO#.Asamatterofpleading,the !B# complaintexplicitlypleadsthesecondandthirdoftheGingles #% preconditionsaswellasgeographiccompactnessunderthefirst J% ' precondition. &F")    ` Thisisnotacase,asinDeGrandy,whereminority (#+ votersholdamajorityinsomedistrictsandtheissueiswhether N*%- 2oftheVRArequirescourtstomaximizethenumberofdistricts +J'/ inwhichminorityvotersmayelecttheircandidatesofchoice.  Here,theonlydistrictinwhichAfricanAmericanvoterscould \ electacandidateoftheirchoice(withhelpfromcrossovervoting) X wasalteredsignificantly;theresult,plaintiffssay,isthat   AfricanAmericanvoterscannolongerelectacandidateoftheir `  choiceinanystatesenatorialdistrict.Farfromcomplainingthat  \  thelegislaturehasfailedtomaximizetheirpoliticalpower,these   plaintiffscomplainthattheiropportunitytoelectacandidateof d  theirchoicehasbeenminimizedindeed,eliminated. `  C.0  FirstPrecondition:Compactness&Numerousness (#(#    ` 1.0 AbilitytoInfluenceandCrossoverVotingh (# (#    ` Thedistrictcourtcharacterizedplaintiffs'claimas d alternatelyan"abilitytoinfluence"claimandan"abilityto  elect"claim.TheGinglesCourt,whenfashioningthethree l preconditionstoaredistrictingchallengetoamultimember h district,expresslyreservedthequestionofwhether2permitted  claimsbyaminoritygroup"allegingthattheuseofamultimember p  districtimpairsitsabilitytoinfluenceelections,"andwhether !l" thethreepreconditionswouldapplyunabatedtosuchaclaim.478 "$ U.S.at46n.12(emphasisinoriginal).Thesamequestionofthe t$& meaningofanabilitytoelectasopposedtoanabilityto  &p!( influencearisesinchallengestosinglememberdistricts.SeeDe '#* Grandy,512U.S.at100809;Voinovich,507U.S.at154. x)$,    ` SinceGingles,therehasbeenmuchconfusionoverthe $+t&. definitionofaninfluenceclaimundertheVRA.Mostoften,  influencedistrictshavebeendefinedasones"inwhichaminority \ grouphasenoughpoliticalhefttoexertsignificantinfluenceon X thechoiceofcandidatethoughnotenoughtodeterminethat   choice."Barnettv.CityofChicago,141F.3d699,703(7thCir. `  1998)(reservingquestionofwhethersuchaclaimiscognizable);  \  seeCousinv.Sundquist,145F.3d818,82829(6thCir.1998)   (refusingtorecognizesuchaclaimundertheVRA);McNeilv. d  LegislativeApportionmentComm'n,828A.2d840,85253(N.J.2003) `  (recognizinginfluencedilutionclaimsundertheVRA).Thiscourt   hasalsousedthe"influencedistrict"terminologyinthissense. h VecinosdeBarrioUnov.CityofHolyoke,72F.3d973,99091(1st d Cir.1995).     ` Theconfusionstemsfromtheintersectionofthistypeof l influenceclaimandanothertype,inwhichaminoritygroup h constitutinglessthanfiftypercentoftheelectoratecanelecta  candidateofitschoicewiththehelpofcrossovervotesfrom p  votersinthemajoritygroup.SeeR.H.Pildes,IsVotingRights !l" LawNowatWarwithItself?SocialScienceandVotingRightsin "$ the2000s,80N.C.L.Rev.1517,153940&n.60(2002)(referring t$& tothislattertypeofdistrictasa"coalitionaldistrict");Note,  &p!( TheFutureofMajorityMinorityDistrictsinLightofDeclining '#* RaciallyPolarizedVoting,116Harv.L.Rev.2208,220910&n.13 x)$, (2003).Wewillrefertothissecondtypeofinfluenceclaimasa $+t&. "crossoverdistrict."o #  7      ׀TheSupremeCourthasnothadthe  opportunitytoaddressthisdistinction;d #  8      ׀theCourtinVoinovich \ usedtheterm"influencedistrict"todescribeacrossoverdistrict X Єoneinwhichminoritiescould,despitetheinabilitytoforma   majority,"electtheircandidateofchoicenonethelessiftheyare `  numerousenoughandtheircandidateattractssufficientcrossover  \  votes."507U.S.at154.k  #  9            ` Plaintiffs,fortheirpart,forswearanyclaimunderthe d  abilitytoinfluencerubric,choosingtostandorfallentirelyon `  anabilitytoelectclaim.However,theydosoonlyasfarasthe   term"influencedistrict"describesonewhereaminoritygroupis  unabletoelectacandidateofitschoiceevenwithcrossover \ support.Theyusetheterm"influencedistrict"inthecomplaint X todescribewhatwelabelacrossoverdistrict,inwhichAfrican   Americanvotershaveanabilitytoelectwithcrossoversupport. `  Weconsideronlythistypeofinfluenceclaim,andnotthemore  \  nebulousvarietydescribedinBarnettanddisavowedbyplaintiffs.      ` TheSupremeCourthasexpresslyheldopenthequestion d  ofwhethertheGinglespreconditionsshouldapplytoinfluence `  claims.SeeDeGrandy,512U.S.at1009;Voinovich,507U.S.at   154;Gingles,478U.S.at46n.12.Wereadthelanguageofthese h cases,especiallyGinglesandVoinovich,toprofessawillingness d toconsideracrossoverdistrictclaimsuchastheoneplaintiffs  plead.TheGingleslanguagesettingasidethequestionofan l influenceclaimdidnotdifferentiatebetweencrossoverdistrict h claimsandclaimsinwhichplaintiffsprofessonlyanabilityto  affect,notdetermine,electoraloutcomes.ButtheCourthasnot p  flatlyrefusedtoconsideracrossoverdistrictdespitethe !l" opportunitytodoso.SeeVoinovich,507U.S.at154. "$    ` TheSupremeCourt'srecentopinioninGeorgiav. t$& Ashcroft,123S.Ct.2498(2003),alsosupportsourconclusionthat  &p!(  crossoverdistrictsshouldbeconsideredinthe2context. '#* Georgiainterpreted5oftheVRA. #  10      ׀TheCourthasrepeatedly   warnedthat2and5"combatdifferentevilsand...impose \ verydifferentdutiesupontheStates."Renov.BossierParish X Sch.Bd.,520U.S.471,476(1997).Despitethedifferences   between2and5analysis,theCourt'streatmentofinfluence `  andcrossoverdistrictsinGeorgiaishighlyinstructive.  \     ` Georgiaheldthatwhenassessingretrogression,courts   mustconsidernotonlymajorityminoritydistrictsbutalsothe d  existenceofinfluencedistricts,includingcrossoverdistricts. `  123S.Ct.at2512.Thestate'splancreatedtwoadditional   districtswithaminoritypopulationofbetweenthirtyandfifty h percent,andtwodistrictswithapopulationofbetweentwentyfive d andthirtypercent.Thesedistricts,theCourtfound,werecrucial  todeterminingtheoveralleffectofthenewredistrictingplan. l Id.at2515.Indeed,theCourtwasunanimousthatcrossover h districtsshouldbeconsideredinthe5analysis;thedissent  objectedonlytotheuseofthoseinfluencedistrictsinwhichit p  wasnotclearthatminorityvoterswouldhaveanabilitytoelect !l" evenwithcrossoversupport.Seeid.at2513,2514;id.at251819 "$ (Souter,J.,dissenting).Ifcrossoverdistrictsareimportant t$& enoughtominorityvoterstobeconsideredwhenassessinga  redistrictingplan'sretrogression,itwouldbeanoddresultif \ thesamevoterscouldnotbringa2claimwhensuchacrossover X districtiseliminatedbyredistricting.      ` GiventheseSupremeCourtprecedents,webelievethat `  whateverthestatusofotherinfluenceclaims,atleastcrossover  \  districtclaimsarecognizableunder2oftheVRA.Wedeclineto   hold,asamatteroflaw,thattheyarenot. d     ` Thisconclusionisconsistentwithourdecisionin `  VecinosdeBarrioUno,supra,wherethiscourtheldthatan   "influencedistrict"thatwastwentyeightpercentHispanicshould h beconsideredinthedeterminationofwhethertheminority d population'svotingstrengthhadbeendiluted.72F.3dat99091  ("[T]hevotingstrengthofaminoritygroupisnotnecessarily l limitedtodistrictsinwhichitsmembersconstituteamajorityof h thevotingagepopulation,butalsoextendstoeverydistrictin  whichitsmembersaresufficientlynumeroustohaveasignificant p  impactattheballotboxmostofthetime.").Unlikethepresent !l" case,theinfluencedistrictinVecinosdeBarrioUnowasusedby "$ thedefendantcityasevidencethattheminoritypopulation t$& retainedpoliticalpower.Moreover,thecitywasnotallegingthat  &p!( theminoritygroupcouldelectitsowncandidatewithcrossover '#* support,butonlythatitwaslargeenoughtowieldinfluenceover x)$, theoutcome.Despitethesefactualdifferences,thiscourt's $+t&. recognitionthatinfluencedistrictsmaybeusedtoshowthe  existenceofthepoliticalpowerofminoritygroupsreinforcesthe \ decisiontorecognize,atleastintheory,asuitcomplainingthat X acrossoverdistricthasbeenunjustlyeliminated.      ` ThoughGinglesdidnotapplythepreconditionsto `  influenceclaims,howevertheyaredefined,somepreconditionsmust  \  applyinordertolinkthecomplainedofvotingpracticewiththe   harmtheplaintiffsallege.Gingles,478U.S.at4851;see d  Vecinos,72F.3dat979n.2("[Thefirst]preconditionwillhaveto `  bereconfiguredtotheextentthatthecourtseventuallyvalidate   socalledinfluencedilutionclaims.").Forthepurposesofthis h discussion,weassumethatplaintiffs'claimmustsatisfythe d secondandthirdGinglespreconditions,andthatsomeformofthe  firstpreconditionwillalsoapply. l    ` 2.0 MajorityRequirementh (# (#    ` ThefirstGinglespreconditionrequiresthat"the  minoritygroupmustbeabletodemonstratethatitissufficiently p  largeandgeographicallycompacttoconstituteamajorityina !l" singlememberdistrict."478U.S.at50.Somecourtshaveread "$ thisliterallytomeanthatunlessplaintiffscanshowthatthey t$& canconstituteanabsolutemajorityinasingledistrictthat  &p!(  is,morethanfiftypercentthenthereisnopossible2 '#* claim.Y #  11      ׀SeeValdespinov.AlamoHeightsIndep.Sch.Dist.,168   F.3d848,85253(5thCir.1999),cert.denied,528U.S.1114 \ (2000);Perezv.PasadenaIndep.Sch.Dist.,165F.3d368,37173 X (5thCir.1999),cert.denied,528U.S.1114(2000);seealso   Negronv.CityofMiamiBeach,113F.3d1563,1571(11thCir. `  1997);Parkerv.Ohio,263F.Supp.2d1100,110405(S.D.Ohio  \  2003).Thatapproachhasbeencriticizedasa"talismanic   requirement,divorcedfromanyunderlyingfunctionalreasons." d  Pildes,supra,at1555.Ifthatapproachwerefollowedhere, `  plaintiffs'complaintwouldfailtomeetthefirstprecondition.      ` Werejecttheconclusionthatno2causeofactionis h everstated,regardlessofthenatureoftheclaim,unless d plaintiffscanshowthataminoritygroupwouldbealiteral  majorityinasingledistrict.Theapproachisinconsistentwith l theSupremeCourt'sowndescriptionsofthefunctionsservedbythe h firstGinglesprecondition.Itisalsoinconsistentwiththe  varietyofpoliticalrealitiestheVRAwasmeanttoaddress;a p  demographicfactoflifeinsomeareasofthecountryisthatno !l" singleracialgroupconstitutesanabsolutemajority.Andfinally, "$ itcontravenestheplaintextof2,whichrequirescourtsto t$& considerthe"totalityofthecircumstances."  &p!(    ` Requiringtheprotectedclasstoshowthatitisan  absolutemajorityignorestherealitythattheclasscouldelect \ itspreferredcandidatewithoutsuchnumbers.Thus,adiscussion X ofwhethertheprotectedclassformsa"majority"isnot   necessarilyhelpfulindeterminingwhetheran"electorallaw, `  practice,orstructureinteractswithsocialandhistorical  \  conditions,"Gingles,478U.S.at47,toimpairtheabilityofthe   classtovote.TheplaintiffsherehaveallegedthatAfrican d  Americanvotersformedapoliticallycohesivegroupthatwasable, `  withtheassistanceofcrossovervoting,toelectthecandidateof   itspreferenceinadistrictthatwaslessthanfiftypercent h AfricanAmericanandthat,inaproperlydrawndistrict,theycould d continuetodoso.     ` Inthecontextofthiscase,thatpleadingsufficesto l satisfytheinterestsidentifiedbytheSupremeCourtforthefirst h Ginglesprecondition.Thatpreconditionshouldnotbereadwithout  regardtoitsfunction:todeterminewhether"theabilityof p  minorityvoterstoelectrepresentativesoftheirchoice"is !l" impeded.Gingles,478U.S.at48.AstheCourthasnoted,"the "$ Ginglesfactorscannotbeappliedmechanicallyandwithoutregard t$& tothenatureoftheclaim."Voinovich,507U.S.at158.y #  12      ׀Gingles  &p!( itself,inreviewingamultimemberdistrict,notedthatthe  functionofthefirstpreconditionwastoassurethattherewasa \ causalrelationshipbetweenthecreationofthedistrictlinesand X theharmtotheplaintiffs;iftheminoritygroup'scandidatecould   notprevaileveninasingledistrict,then"themultimemberform `  cannotberesponsibleforminorityvoters'inabilitytoelectits  \  candidates."478U.S.at50(emphasisremoved).Similarly,when   discussingmajorityblocvotinginthecontextofthethird d  precondition,Ginglesdefineditasthatwhichissufficient `  usuallyto"defeatthecombinedstrengthofminoritysupportplus   whitecrossovervotes."Id.at56(internalquotationmarks h omitted);seealsoJenkinsv.RedClayConsol.Sch.Dist.Bd.of d Educ.,4F.3d1103,1123(3dCir.1993)("[T]heGingles[third  precondition]standardpresupposestheexistenceofcrossover l voting.").Growereinforcedthisfunctionalanalysis,notingthat h "the'geographicallycompactmajority'and'minoritypolitical  cohesion'showingsareneededtoestablishthattheminorityhas p  thepotentialtoelectarepresentativeofitsownchoiceinsome !l" singlememberdistrict."507U.S.at40.Suchsupportfora "$ functionalapproachleavesroomtoincludeclaimsinwhichan t$& electoralmajorityisformedonlywithcrossoversupport.  &p!(    ` Thisfunctionalapproachalsobetteraccountsforvarious '#* politicalrealities.Inelectoralschemesinwhichrepresentatives x)$, canusuallybeelectedwithlessthanamajorityofthevote,  Ginglesshouldnotbereadtorequirethattheminoritygroup \ neverthelessbeabletoformaliteralmajorityinareconfigured X district.RhodeIslandlawspecificallyprovidesthatcandidates   inbothprimaryandgeneralelectionsforstateofficemaybe `  electedwithapluralityofthevote.SeeR.I.Const.art.IV,  \  2(generalelections);R.I.Gen.Laws171529(2002)(primary   elections).Insuchcases,constitutingamajoritywouldnotbe d  necessaryforminoritiesto"electarepresentativeoftheir `  choice."42U.S.C.1973(b);seeRomerov.Pomona,883F.2d1418,   1424n.7(9thCir.1989),overruledonothergrounds,929F.2d1358 h (9thCir.1990).Z #  13      ׀"TotheextentthatcourtshavereadGinglesto d elevatetheabilitytocreateadistrictwithamajorityblack  electorateintoathresholdrequirementforestablishingliability l inallvotedilutionlitigation,theyhaveimproperlyappliedone h particulartheoryofliabilitytootherdistincttypesofvote  dilution."P.S.Karlan,MapsandMisreadings:TheRoleof p  GeographicCompactnessinRacialVoteDilutionLitigation,24Harv. !l" C.R.C.L.L.Rev.173,202(1989). "$    ` Georgiav.Ashcroft,supra,confirmsthatinfluence t$& districts,includingcrossoverdistricts,areimportanttoany  practicalassessmentofminorityvotingpower.InGeorgia,the \ CourtemphasizedthefactboundnatureofVRAclaims,holdingthat X theretrogressioninquiryunder5,likethedilutioninquiry   under2,see42U.S.C.1973(b),requiresanassessmentofthe `  "totalityofthecircumstances."123S.Ct.at2511.Onereason  \  forthisbroadfactualinquiry,theCourtindicated,isthat"[t]he   abilityofminorityvoterstoelectacandidateoftheirchoiceis d  importantbutoftencomplexinpracticetodetermine."Id. `  Accordingly,theCourtheld,influenceandcrossoverdistrictsmust   beconsideredaspartofthatdeterminationintheretrogression h context.Id.at2512.TheCourtalsocitedempiricalstudies d indicatingthatsuchdistrictsmaymaximizeminorityvoting  strength.Id.at251213. l    ` Wealsoconsiderrelevantbothmodernandhistorical h politicalrealities.Duringthe1970sand1980s,AfricanAmerican  populationsusuallycouldnotelectrepresentativesoftheirchoice p  unlesstheyconstitutedamajorityinanelectoraldistrict.See !l" generallyQuietRevolutionintheSouth(C.Davidson&B.Grofman "$ eds.,1994).Indeed,usuallyameremajoritywasnotsufficient; t$& manybelievedthattoovercomeracialblocvotingpatterns,the  &p!( totalminoritypopulationneededtobesixtyfivepercent. '#* SeeKetchumv.Byrne,740F.2d1398,141516(7thCir.1984) x)$, (collectingsources).Butthepercentageofminoritypopulation $+t&. necessarytoelectacandidatehasbeensteadilydeclining.By  1990,fiftyfivepercentwasgenerallyconsideredsufficient.And \ thereafter,duetoincreasedwhitecrossovervoting,thenumberhas X slippedbelowmajoritylevel.Onestudyreportedthatduringthe   1990s,anAfricanAmericancandidatecouldbeelectedfroma `  congressionaldistrictthatwasbetweenthirtythreeandthirty  \  ninepercentAfricanAmerican.B.Grofman,L.Handley&D.Lublin,   DrawingEffectiveMinorityDistricts:AConceptualFrameworkand d  SomeEmpiricalEvidence,79N.C.L.Rev.1383,140709(2001).The `  percentageofminorityvotersnecessarytoelectacandidate   dependsheavilyonthepoliticalmakeupofthedistrictasawhole, h seePildes,supra,at153536,amatterdifficulttodetermineon d amotiontodismissacomplaint.     ` Insum,itisnotanabsolutebartoaclaimunder2of l theVRAthatsomeamountofcrossovervotingisneededfora h minoritygrouptoelectacandidateofitschoice.[ #  14      ׀SeeArmourv.  Ohio,775F.Supp.1044,105961(N.D.Ohio1991)(threejudge  court);seealsoMcNeil,828A.2dat85253;Powers,263F.Supp. \ 2dat11091113(threejudgecourt)(Gwin,J.,concurringin X judgment);Westv.Clinton,786F.Supp.803,807&n.2(W.D.Ark.   1992)(threejudgecourt). `     ` Thoughaclaimthatincludescrossovervotingmaybe  \  cognizableunderthefirstpreconditionfora2causeofaction,   noteverysuchclaimwillpassmuster.Itwouldbediscordantwith d  theAct,forinstance,toconsideracrossoverdistrictclaimfrom `  anumericallytinyminoritypopulationthatcanonlyclaimahope   toelectacandidatewithanoverwhelmingnumberofcrossover h votes.Severallimitingprinciplesreadilypresentthemselves.u #  15       d    ` First,thiscasepresentsaclaimnotmerelyofan  abstracthopetoelecttheAfricanAmericanvoters'preferred \ candidatethroughbothAfricanAmericanandcrossovervoting.The X allegedlossismuchmoreconcrete.Historically,theAfrican   Americancommunity'spreferredcandidatewasconsistentlyelected, `  eventhoughAfricanAmericanvoterswerelessthananumerical  \  majorityinthedistrict.Theredistrictingplan,however,   significantlyreducedthepercentageofAfricanAmericanvotersin d  thedistrict,andthecandidatelosthisbidforreelection. `  AfricanAmericanvoterssued,sayingtheyhadbeendeniedanequal   opportunitytoelectthecandidateoftheirchoice,andonthis h motiontodismiss,theredistrictingplanmustbetakenasthe d causeofthelostelection.Thatisnottosaythatahistoryof  electoralsuccessisanecessarypartofasuccessfulclaim, l especiallyifthelackofsuccessisduetohistoricvotedilution, h buttheminoritygroup'shistoricalvotingsuccessmakesthisan  easiercase. p     ` Thesecondisthestatutoryrequirementthataminority !l" populationbeabletoelect,inapotentialdistrict, "$ "representativesoftheirchoice."42U.S.C.1973(b)(emphasis t$& supplied).Aminoritygroupmayrequiresomanycrossovervotes  &p!( thatitdoesnottrulyhavethecapacitytochooseitsown '#* candidate,butonlytohelpelectcandidateschosenbyother x)$, groups.Ifso,plaintiffscannotmakeacrossoverdistrictclaim. $+t&. Here,however,theplaintiffsclearlypleadintheircomplaintthat  theAfricanAmericancommunitycanelectitsowncandidatewith \ crossoversupportinaproperlydrawndistrict. X    ` Thethirdlimitationisexpressedinthethird   Ginglesprecondition:"theminoritymustbeabletodemonstrate `  thatthewhitemajorityvotessufficientlyasabloctoenableit  \  ...usuallytodefeattheminority'spreferredcandidate."478   U.S.at51.Aminoritypopulationthatistoosmall,andthat d  thereforerequirestoohighalevelofcrossoversupport,willnot `  beabletomeetthethirdprecondition.Ifthemajoritypopulation   iswillingtoprovidecrossoversupporttominoritychosen h candidatesatveryhighlevels,thenitcannotbesaidtobevoting d asablocagainstthesecandidates.Forthereasonsdescribed  below,theplaintiffs'complaintoffersenoughonthethird l preconditiontorenderaRule12(b)(6)dismissalonthatground h inappropriate.f #  16           ` Finally,wenotethatthisisnotasituation,asin p  Georgiav.Ashcroft,supra,wheretheleadersoftheAfrican !l" Americancommunitydevelopedtheredistrictingplanatissue.The "$ contraryistruehere.Withonlyonestatesenatoroutoffifty, t$& theAfricanAmericancommunityhadpreciouslittlepolitical  &p!( strengthinthesenatebeforetheredistricting.Aftertheplan '#* wasimplemented,theylosttheironlyrepresentation.Similarly,  thisisnotacaseaboutthefailuretomaximizepotentialAfrican \ Americanvotingpower.Cf.Abramsv.Johnson,521U.S.74(1997). X Rather,thisisacaseabouttheeliminationofAfricanAmerican   voters'opportunitytoelectthecandidateoftheirchoice,an `  opportunitythattheyhadconsistentlyenjoyedpriortothe  \  redistricting.   D.  ThirdPrecondition:MajorityBlocVoting d     ` ThethirdGinglespreconditionrequiresthat"the `  minoritymustbeabletodemonstratethatthewhitemajorityvotes   sufficientlyasabloctoenableit...usuallytodefeatthe h minority'spreferredcandidate."478U.S.at51.Again,thisis d partofafunctionalapproachtotheAct.Seeid.("In  establishingthislastcircumstance,theminoritygroup l demonstratesthatsubmergenceinawhitemultimemberdistrict h impedesitsabilitytoelectitschosenrepresentatives.").This  courthasdescribedthethirdconditionasaddressing"whetherthe p  challengedpractice,procedure,orstructureisthecauseofthe !l" minoritygroup'sinabilitytomobilizeitspotentialvotingpower "$ andelectitspreferredcandidates,"Vecinos,72F.3dat980,and t$& referredtotheblocsimplyasa"majoritarian"bloc,id.at981,  &p!( 982. '#*    ` Thedistrictcourtheldthattheplaintiffs'complaint x)$, failedtosatisfythisthirdcondition.First,itreadGingles $+t&. specificallytorequirethatthemajorityblocmustbeawhite  numericalmajority.Whilethecomplaintdoesnotspecifythewhite \ populationofSenateDistrict2,itcanbenomorethan31.84% X aftersubtractingtheAfricanAmericanandHispanicpopulation.   Furthermore,thecourtcalculatedthatbecausetheolddistrictwas `  onlytwentysixpercentAfricanAmerican,thecrossovervoteneeded  \  toelectthecandidatepreferredbyAfricanAmericanvoterswould   havetoconstitutetwentyfourpercentoftheelectorate.Ifhalf d  ofthatcrossovervotewerewhite,thecourtreasoned,thenthe `  whitepopulationwouldbecrossingoveratarateofaboutone   third,whichitthoughttoohightobeconsistentwith"bloc h voting"neededto"defeattheminority'spreferredcandidate." d Metts,217F.Supp.2dat26061.     ` Thisreasoninghasseveralflaws.Inherentinthe l court'sanalysisistheassumptionthattheelectoralcontestwould h haveonlytwocandidates.Thatisnotnecessarilyso,particularly  inprimaries.Inmanyjurisdictions,thewinnerofaparticular p  party'sprimaryisdefactothewinnerofthegeneralelection;it !l" maybeinferredthatthiswashistoricallythecaseintheold "$ SenateDistrict9anditremainstrueinthereconfiguredSenate t$& District2.Thecourtalsoallocatedthecrossovervotehalfto  &p!( whitesandhalftoHispanics,butthereissimplynoevidenceof '#* theracialcompositionofthecrossovervotes,eitherhistorically x)$, orinaproposedalternativedistrict. $+t&.    ` Further,werejectthedistrictcourt'simpermissible  focusononlythewhitevotersinSenateDistrict2forpurposesof \ thethirdGinglesprecondition.Theplaintiffs,intheir X complaint,claimthat"[t]hewhiteandHispaniccommunitiesvote   sufficientlyasablocusuallytodefeatthecandidateofchoiceof `  AfricanAmericanvoterswhenthatcandidateisAfricanAmericanand  \  thedistrictislessthantwentysixpercentblackintotal   population."UnderthestandardsofRule12(b)(6),suchclaimsin d  thecomplaintmayberejectedonlyiftheyare"baldassertions"or `  "unsupportableconclusions."Chongrisv.Bd.ofAppeals,811F.2d   36,37(1stCir.1987).Neithercharacterizationcanbesaidtobe h truehere. d    ` TheVRAdoesnot,byitsterms,affordprotectiontoor  againstanyparticularracialorethnicgroup;ifitdid,itmight l wellbesuspectundertheEqualProtectionClause.U.S.Const. h amend.XIV,1.ThelanguageofGinglesreferredtoa"white  majority"onlybecausethathappenedtobethecompositionofthe p  majorityonthefactsbeforetheCourt.See478U.S.at51. !l"    ` Normustthemajorityblocbecomprisedofonlyonerace. "$ Whilethe"protectedclass"beingdiscriminatedagainstmustbe t$& constitutedofaparticular"raceorcolor,"see42U.S.C.  &p!( 1973(a),thereisnorequirementintheVRAthatacontrary '#* votingblocbeofjustonerace.Coalitionsofcertainracesthat x)$, characteristicallyvoteagainstthepreferredcandidateofa $+t&. differentracialgroupmaywellconstituteblocvotingforpurposes  ofthethirdGinglesprecondition.InDeGrandy,theSupremeCourt \ consideredsuchachallengetoFlorida'sstatelegislative X districts.Inonecounty,therewerethreelargevotergroups:   AfricanAmericans,Hispanics,andwhites.Thetrialcourtfound, `  basedonexperttestimony,thatduringelectionspittingaminority  \  candidateagainstawhiteone,thewhitevoterswouldvoteasa   blocalongwiththeotherminoritygroup'svoterstoelectthe d  whitecandidate.DeGrandyv.Wetherell,815F.Supp.1550,1572 `  (N.D.Fla.1992)(threejudgecourt).TheSupremeCourtdidnot   findthisfactpatternproblematicasameanstosatisfythethird h Ginglesprecondition.DeGrandy,512U.S.at1007.Inasimilar d case,alsoreviewingachallengetoaFloridaredistrictingplan,  theEleventhCircuitfoundthat"acoalitionofHispanicsandNon l LatinWhitescouldformtherelevantmajorityvotingblocforthe h purposeofthethirdGinglesfactor."Meekv.Metro.DadeCounty,  908F.2d1540,154546(11thCir.1990).Weagree. p     ` Thedistrictcourt'srationaledoes,however,highlight !l" apotentialdifficultywiththeplaintiffs'complaint.Inthe "$ plaintiffs'proposedremedialdistrict,theAfricanAmerican t$& populationwouldbeatleasttwentysixpercent.Dependingonhow  &p!( thefactsaredeveloped,thatnumbermayraiseissuesrelatedto '#* thethirdprecondition.Ifitistruethatamajority(ratherthan x)$, onlyaplurality)isneededtoelectacandidate,iftheracial $+t&. makeupofthevotersisproportionaltotheracialcompositionof  thedistrict,andif,astheplaintiffsassert,theAfrican \ Americanvotersarepoliticallycohesive,thencrossovervoting X wouldneedtoreachtwentyfourpercent.Inthatscenario,thirty   twopercentofthenonAfricanAmericanvoterswouldhaveto `  supporttheAfricanAmericancommunity'schosencandidateinorder  \  toreachthemajorityneeded.Thedistrictcourtbelievedthat   suchahighrateofcrossovervotingwouldbeinconsistentwitha d  findingofblocvoting. `     ` AttheRule12(b)(6)stage,thatconclusionispremature.   Aseriesoffactualassumptionswouldberequiredtojudgethe h averagelevelofcrossoversupporttheplaintiffsarealleging, d assumptionsthatcannotbeconfirmedorrepudiatedatthisstageof  theproceedings.Whilethecomplaint'sdescriptionofa l reconfigureddistrictincludestotalpopulationfigures,thereis h nodemographicinformationconcerningthevotingagepopulation,  thenumberofregisteredvoters,ortheexpectedvotersinany p  givenelection,muchlessthetypicalvotingpatternsofvarious !l" groups.Therearealsonofactsaboutthenumberofcandidates "$ thattypicallyrunintheprimaryorgeneralelections.Without t$& suchinformation,itisimpossibletoknowthepercentageof  &p!( crossoversupportnecessarytoelectthecandidateoftheAfrican '#* Americancommunity'schoice. x)$,    ` Moreimportantly,evenifthefactsshowthatcrossover $+t&. votingofthirtytwopercentwouldberequired,thatnumber,  withoutmore,doesnotwarrantaRule12(b)(6)dismissalfor \ failuretostateaclaiminlightofthethird X Ginglesprecondition.Thestatutecommandsanexaminationof"the   totalityofcircumstances."42U.S.C.1973(b).Aninquiryinto `  thethirdpreconditionisthusaninherentlyfactualenterprise.  \  "[T]hedegreeofracialblocvotingthatiscognizableasan   elementofa2votedilutionclaimwillvaryaccordingtoa d  varietyoffactualcircumstances."Gingles,478U.S.at5758;see `  Vecinos,72F.3dat989.TheSupremeCourthasbeencharyofper   serulesinthisarea,whethertheclaimisthatadeviceisaper h seviolationof2,Voinovich,507U.S.154,orwhethertheclaim d isthatasinglefactorisasafeharborfordefendants,DeGrandy,  512U.S.at101718. l    ` Oneimportantfactoraboutwhichtherecordis h undevelopedisthepatternofvotingbehaviorovertime.Gingles  stressedtheimportanceofdeterminingwhetherracialblocvoting p  isapatternextendingovertimeormerelyaphenomenoninasingle !l" election.478U.S.at57.Thereverseisalsotrue:thesuccess "$ ofaminoritycandidate,ortheabsenceofblocvotinginafew t$& elections,cannotbetakentomeanthatthedistrictdoesnot  &p!( experienceracialblocvotingoverall.Id. '#*    ` Furthermore,acrossoverrateofthirtytwopercentis x)$, withintherangeoffactpatternsinwhichcourtshavefound $+t&. majorityblocvoting.Ginglesitselffoundmajorityblocvoting  wherethemajoritygroupsupportedAfricanAmericancandidatesin \ thegeneralelectionataratebetweentwentyeightandfortynine X percent,withanaveragesupportofonethird.Id.at59;see   Camposv.Baytown,840F.2d1240,1249(5thCir.1988)(finding `  majorityblocvotingwhenthecrossovervotewasthirtyseven  \  percent).Ofcourse,thatdoesnotmeanthatacrossoverrateless   thanonethirdwouldalwaysdisprovemajorityblocvoting:inother d  circumstances,theSupremeCourthasfoundacrossoverrate `  averagingbetweentwentytwoandthirtyeightpercentsufficientto   suggest"ageneralwillingnessofwhitevoterstovoteforblack h candidates,"especiallywhenminoritycandidateshavearecordof d success.i #  17      ׀Abramsv.Johnson,521U.S.74,93(1997)(internal  quotationmarksomitted). l    ` Atthisstageofthelitigationthereisnoevidenceof h thedegreeoreffect,ifany,ofraciallypolarizedvoting,or  whetheravotingdistrictcouldhavebeenconstitutedtoprotect p  theabilityofbothAfricanAmericanandHispanicvoterstoelect !l" candidatesoftheirchoice. "$    ` ThedissentmissesthepointwhenitobjectsthattheVRA  isnotmeant"toensurethesuccessofcandidatesfavoredby \ minoritygroups."Inthiscase,itisundisputedthataminority X group'spreferredcandidate,anincumbent,failedtowinreelection   inthefirstelectionafterthestatelegislatureadopteda `  redistrictingplanthatdecreasedthepercentagerepresentationof  \  thatminorityinthecandidate'shomeelectoraldistrict.Nocourt   haseverheldanditwouldbeclearerrorforacourttohold d  thatsuchadefeatisirrelevanttothequestionwhethermembersof `  thatminoritygroup"havelessopportunitythanothermembersof   theelectoratetoparticipateinthepoliticalprocessandtoelect h representativesoftheirchoice."42U.S.C.1973(b).Plaintiffs d seekequalityofopportunity,notaguaranteeofelectoralsuccess.     ` Thedistrictcourt'sdismissaloftheplaintiffs' l complaintunderRule12(b)(6)forfailuretomeetthethirdGingles h preconditionwasinappropriate.  @88) IV.  p     ` Congress,inenactingtheVotingRightsAct,was 8!" cognizantofthiscountry'slongandshamefulhistoryofexcluding "4$ AfricanAmericansfromourpoliticalprocesses.Inlightofthe $& purposesoftheFourteenthAmendmentanditsguaranteeofequal <&!( protectionofthelaws,itisnoanswertosay,asthedissent '8#* does,thatthefederalcourtsshouldclosetheirdoorstopossibly )$, meritoriouscomplaintsundertheVotingRightsActoutofdeference @+&. tomajoritarianwilland"difficult"legislativechoices.Thatis  particularlytrueatthisearlystageofthelitigation. \ Plaintiffsmuststillprovetheircase;theymustestablishthe X Ginglespreconditions,aswellasasubstantiveviolationofthe   VRA,withevidence.Thereisnofrustrationofmajoritarianwill `  inrequiringthedefendantstorespondtoallegationsthatstatea  \  claimundertheAct.Thedissentdescribessuchaclaimasaquest   for"unfairadvantage."Tothecontrary,thecomplaintstatesa d  claimofunfairdisadvantagetoAfricanAmericanvotersinthe `  exerciseofthemostimportantrightinourAmericandemocracy.If   plaintiffsultimatelyprevail,itwillbebecausetheyhaveproven h thattheRhodeIslandlegislature,actingforthemajority,has d violatedtheVotingRightsActbyimpermissiblydenyingmembersof  theAfricanAmericancommunityinProvidenceanequalopportunity l toelectastatesenatoroftheirchoice.AstheSupremeCourt h statedinGeorgiav.Ashcroft,"[t]hepurposeoftheVotingRights  Actistopreventdiscriminationintheexerciseoftheelectoral p  franchiseandtofosterourtransformationtoasocietythatisno !l" longerfixatedonrace."123S.Ct.at2517. "$    ` Theplaintiffsmustbegiventheopportunitytoprove t$& theircase.Weexpressnoviewastotheoutcome.Thedismissal  &p!( oftheplaintiffs'complaintis reversed andthecaseis remanded  '#* forproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion. )$,  @+&.   Dissentingopinionfollows.     x     8 U XXdXXd8^e*,X` XX* ` SELYA,CircuitJudge(dissenting). Althoughitis  regrettablethatredistrictingmaymakeitmoredifficultfora x candidatepreferredbyAfricanAmericanvoterstowinelectionto $t theRhodeIslandstatesenate,theVotingRightsActisnot   intendedasameansofensuringthateveryminoritygrouphas |  exactlythedistrictlinesthatitdeemsmostadvantageous.Inthe ( x  circumstancesofthiscase,Icandiscernnovalidlegalbasisfor $  ustosuperimposetheappellants'willonthatoftheRhodeIsland   GeneralAssembly.Iwouldthereforeaffirmthedistrictcourt's ,|  dismissaloftheamendedcomplaint. (  ` Myreasoningisrootedinprecedent.TheSupremeCourt  hasmadeitreasonablyclearthat,asathresholdrequirementfor 0 themaintenanceofavotedilutionclaiminasinglemember , district,plaintiffsmustshow(1)thattheyarepartofaminority  groupthatissufficientlylargeandgeographicallycompactto 4 constituteamajorityinsomeplausibleiterationoftheaffected 0 district;(2)thatthegroupispoliticallycohesive;and(3)that   otherracialgroupsengageinblocvotingsignificantenoughto 8!" defeattheminoritygroup'spreferredcandidate.Voinovichv. "4$ Quilter,507U.S.146,157158(1993)(applyingThornburgv. $& Gingles,478U.S.30,5051(1986),tosinglememberdistricts); <&!( Growev.Emison,507U.S.25,40(1993)(same).Giventhenature '8#* oftheirclaim,Ithinkitisfairlyclearthattheappellants )$, cannotsatisfythefirstprecondition.Itisabsolutelyclear, @+&. however,thattheycannotsimultaneouslysatisfyboththefirstand  thirdpreconditions. \  ` IstartwiththefirstGinglesprecondition.The X appellantsconcedethattheyareunabletoshowthatAfrican   Americanscanconstitutealiteralmajorityinanyplausible `  iterationofSenateDistrict2.Rather,theircomplaintrestson  \  thenovelpremisethataminoritygroupwhosememberscannot   conceivablycompriseanumericalmajority,eveninwhatisfrom d  theirpointofviewanideallyconfiguredsinglememberdistrict, `  nonethelesscanmountaviablevotedilutionclaimbydemonstrating   thatthedistrict'slinescouldhavebeendrawninsuchawayasto h givetheminoritygrouptheabilitytoelectthecandidateits d membersprefer.Whetherornotthistypeofclaimevercanfall  withinthepurviewofsection2oftheVotingRightsAct(VRA),42 l U.S.C.1973,theinstantclaimdoesnot.Theidentifiedminority h groupissosmallanditsneedtorelyoncrossovervotingsogreat  thattheappellants'section2claimnecessarilyfails. p   ` ItiscommongroundthatcourtsmustapplytheGingles !l" preconditionstotheidealdistrictproposedbythosewhochallenge "$ aredistrictingplan.SeeHolderv.Hall,512U.S.874,880(1994) t$& (opinionofKennedy,J.);Negr;nv.CityofMiamiBeach,113F.3d  &p!( 1563,1571(11thCir.1997).Inthiscase,theappellantsconcede '#* thattheadoptionofaconstitutionalamendmentdownsizingthe x)$, GeneralAssemblyrequiredredistrictingofthestatesenate.Thus, $+t&. SenateDistrict9couldnotremainintactandhadtobe  reconfigured.Withthisinmind,theappellantsdescribetheir \ idealversionofSenateDistrict2asadistrictinwhichAfrican X Americanscompriseroughly26%ofthepopulation.This   configurationdifferentiatestheappellants'casefromthemine `  run.Typically,votedilutionclaimsaddressredistrictingschemes  \  thattakearacialminoritygroupwhosemembershavethepotential   tocompriseanumericalmajorityinageographicallycompact d  districtanddispersethegroupacrosstwoormoredistricts(with `  theresultthatitsmembersconstituteamajorityinnone).See   Voinovich,507U.S.at153. h  ` Mycolleaguessuggestthatwecanchangetheparadigm d becausetheappellantsmayhavebeendeprivedofa"crossover  district""akindof"influencedistrict"inwhichanumerical l minorityissopositionedthatithasanabilitytoswing h elections.Seegenerallyid.at154(describinganinfluence  districtasoneinwhichminoritygroupmembers"couldnotdictate p  electoraloutcomesindependently[but]couldelecttheircandidate !l" ofchoicenonethelessiftheyarenumerousenoughandtheir "$ candidateattractssufficientcrossovervotesfromwhitevoters"). t$& TheSupremeCourthasrepeatedlyrefrainedfromdecidingthe  &p!( cognizabilityofclaimsbasedonlegislativedismantlingof '#* crossoverdistricts,e.g.,Johnsonv.DeGrandy,512U.S.997, x)$, 100809(1994);Voinovich,507U.S.at154,and,untiltoday,this $+t&. courthasexhibitedthesamerestraint,e.g.,VecinosdeBarrioUno  v.CityofHolyoke,72F.3d973,979n.2(1stCir.1995). \  ` Tobesure,thepreservationofinfluenceorcrossover X districtsmayconstitutearelevantfactorindefendingagainsta   votedilutionclaim.See,e.g.,DeGrandy,512U.S.at1020; `  Vecinos,72F.3dat99091&n.13;LatinoPoliticalActionComm.v.  \  CityofBoston,784F.2d409,41415(1stCir.1986).Buttosay   thatacourtmayconsidercrossoverdistrictsindeferringtoa d  state'sredistrictingplanisverydifferentfromsayingthata `  minorityhasthelegalright,undersection2oftheVRA,todemand   thatthelegislatureestablishsuchadistrict.Theultimategoal h oftheVRAis"transitiontoasocietywhereracenolonger d matters."Georgiav.Ashcroft,123S.Ct.2498,2517(2003).  Thus,minoritiesstillbeartheburden"topull,haul,andtradeto l findcommonpoliticalground,thevirtueofwhichisnottobe h slightedinapplyingastatutemeanttohastenthewaningofracism  inAmericanpolitics."Id.at2512(quotingDeGrandy,512U.S.at p  1020)(internalquotationsmarksomitted).Mycolleagues'freshly !l" minted"functionalapproach"wouldsignificantlylightenthis "$ burden. t$&  ` Inallevents,decidingthiscasedoesnotrequireusto  &p!( gosofarastoruleoutallsection2claimsbasedona '#* legislature'sfailureeithertoassembleortopreserveacrossover x)$, district.Here,therawnumbersareinimicaltosuchaclaim.The $+t&. pertinentdemographicforanalysisofthefirstGingles  preconditionisthevotingagepopulation.SeeGrowe,507U.S.at \ 38n.4;Ketchumv.Byrne,740F.2d1398,141213(7thCir.1984). X Inthiscase,theappellantsmaintainthatAfricanAmericans   representedapproximately26%ofthevotingagepopulationin `  formerSenateDistrict9yetrepresentonly21%ofthevotingage  \  populationinthenewdistrict(SenateDistrict2).Theyclaim   thatthis5%differentialisapoliticalkissofdeath. d   ` Strippedofrhetoricalflourishes,theappellants'thesis `  proceedsalongthefollowinglines.Wheneveracandidatepreferred   byAfricanAmericansrunsforthestatesenateinthenewdistrict, h heorshewillreceivealltheAfricanAmericanvotesplusnoless d than32%butnomorethan37%ofthecombinedwhiteandHispanic  votes(thesebeingthepercentagesofallwhiteandHispanicvoters l necessarytoformamajorityinconjunctionwithAfricanAmerican h voterswhenAfricanAmericansconstitute26%and21%ofthe  population,respectively)._ #  18      ׀Intheappellants'view,those p  crossovervoterswillfavortheAfricanAmericans'preferred !l" candidateregardlessoftheraceorpoliticsofhisorher "$ opponent(s).Consequently,theredistrictingplanisvulnerable t$& undersection2oftheVRAbecausetheelectorate'spolarizationis  &p!( sodeeplyentrenchedthatcandidatespecificvariationswill  operateonlywithina5%margin. \  ` Whetherviewedasamatteroflogic,politicalscience, X orhumanbehavior,thispredictionstrikesmeasutterly   conjectural.Forgoodreason,adifferenceofafewpercentage `  pointsintheminoritypopulationofasinglememberdistrict  \  generallyhasbeenthoughtunlikelytoaffectelectionoutcomes.   SeeS.ChristianLeadershipConf.v.Sessions,56F.3d1281,1296 d  (11thCir.1995)(enbanc).Theappellant'sclaimfliesinthe `  teethofthisconventionalwisdom"andthemerefactthatonevery   popularcandidate,runninguphill,hadaseriesofsuccessesinthe h "old"districtdoesnotvalidatetheappellants'claim. d  ` EvenifImustindulgetheclaimbecausethedistrict  courtchosetoactattheRule12(b)(6)stage,themostthatcanbe l saidisthattheappellantshadforgedasortoffunctional h majorityinformerSenateDistrict9.BythatImeanthatAfrican  Americans,thoughneithernumerousnorconcentratedenoughto p  compriseamajorityinthedistrict,exhibitedanabilitytoelect !l" aparticularlyappealingcandidatewiththeaidofalargeand "$ predictablenonAfricanAmericancrossovervote.Butwhatevermay t$& besaidforfunctionalmajorityclaimsingeneral,theappellants'  &p!( functionalmajorityclaimisanonstarter.Where,ashere,a '#* minoritygroupcomprisesonlyarelativelysmallfractionofthe x)$, totalpopulationofanelectoraldistrictbeforeredistricting,the $+t&. inabilityofgroupmemberstoelectthecandidateoftheirchoice  afterredistrictingcanmuchmorereadilybeattributedto \ candidatespecificissuesthantoaslightreductionintheir X numbers.Inallevents,aminoritygroupofthatmodestsizemust   relysoheavilyoncrossovervotes,bothbeforeandafter `  redistricting,thatsection2oftheVRAprovidesnosafeharbor.  \   ` Thefigurestellthetale.Intheappellants'idealized   district,whitesandHispanicswouldhavetocastalmosthalfof d  thevotesneededforasuccessfulsenatorialcandidacy.Those `  voteswouldnotcorrelatewiththeindividualvoter'srace,but,   rather,withtheraceofthecandidate,or,alternatively,withthe h raceoftheminoritygroupmemberswithwhomthecrossovervoters d identify.Thisfacthastwoimportantimplications.Inthefirst  place,itconfirmsthat,regardlessofhowthedistrict'slinesare l drawn,AfricanAmericansbythemselvesdonothaveanythingclose h toanabilitytoelectthecandidateoftheirchoice.Inthe  secondplace,itdemonstratesthattheappellants'claimputsthe p  emphasisnotonassuringequalopportunityforminorityvotersbut !l" onassuringavictorybytheAfricanAmericans'preferred "$ candidate.Thatisthewrongemphasis.See42U.S.C.1973(b) t$& (identifying"membersofaclassofcitizens,"notcandidates,as  &p!( theoperativeunitofstatutoryprotection);seealsoDeGrandy, '#* 512U.S.at1014n.11(explainingthat"theultimaterightof2 x)$, isequalityofopportunity,notaguaranteeofelectoralsuccess"); $+t&. Smithv.BrunswickCountyBd.ofSupervisors,984F.2d1393,1400  (4thCir.1993)(abjuringclassificationofprotectedgroupsbythe \ waytheyvoteratherthanbytheirrace;todootherwisewould X impermissibly"resolv[e]discriminationissuesonthebasisof   whethermembersoftheprotectedgroupareelected");cf.Gingles, `  478U.S.at99100(O'Connor,J.,concurring)(agreeingthat,for  \  purposesofasection2claim,votingmustcorrelatewiththerace   ofthevoter). d   ` Theexistenceofthismisdirectedemphasisisborneout `  bythefactthattheappellants'proposedreconfigurationofSenate   District2wouldstrengthentheelectoralpowernotonlyofthe h AfricanAmericancommunitybutalsoofthesizablewhiteand d Hispaniccrossovervote.Thatincreasedpoliticalcloutwouldcome  attheexpenseoftheremainingtwothirdsofthewhiteand l Hispanicvoters.TheVRAempowerscourtstoprotecttherightsof h aminoritygrouptoparticipateintheelectoralprocesssothat  suchagroup,iftreatedfairly,canbecomeamajority.Itdoes p  notgivecourtstherawpowertoprivilegetheinterestsofthefew !l" overtheinterestsofthemany,muchlessthepowertooverridethe "$ normalfunctioningofthemajoritarianprocess.SeeVecinos,72 t$& F.3dat982;Smith,984F.2dat140002.  &p!(  ` Thedemocraticsystemremainsthebestandfairest '#* electoralsystemeverdevised.Evenso,therealitiesofdemocracy x)$, aresometimesharsh.Theappellantsseektoavoidtheserealities $+t&. bytemptingustotreatcrossovervotersasiftheyconstitutepart  ofaprotectedminoritywithinthepurviewofsection2.Fidelity \ tocoredemocraticvaluesdemandsthatweresistthistemptation. X WhiletheGinglespreconditionscontemplateacertaindegreeof   crossovervoting,seeGingles,478U.S.at56;Jenkinsv.RedClay `  Consol.Sch.Dist.Bd.ofEduc.,4F.3d1103,1123(3dCir.1993),  \  thereisapointatwhichcrossovervotingbecomessolargeapart   ofthepictureastocrowdoutthepossibilityofalegally d  cognizablevotedilutionclaim. `   ` Thatisthepicturepaintedbytheamendedcomplaint.   Where,asinthiscase,thebricolagecomprisesaroughlyequalmix h ofminorityandcrossovervoters,allowingavotedilutionclaimto d goforwardwouldmakesenseonlyiftheendgameweretoensurethe  successofcandidatesfavoredbyminoritygroups.AsIalready l haveexplained,however,thatisnottheobjectiveoftheVRA.Nor h shoulditbe;mycolleagues'"functionalapproach"wouldcreatea  topsyturvyworldinwhichlegislatureswouldhavetobase p  redistrictingplansnotontheneedtopreservelegitimate !l" majority/minoritydistricts,but,rather,onguessworkaboutthe "$ wayinwhicheachconstituentwaslikelytovote.h #  19       t$&  ` Inshort,Idonotbelievethatsection2oftheVRA  authorizesvotedilutionclaimsthatarewhollydependentupon \ massivecrossovervoting.Thereisacriticaldistinctionbetween X minoritypreferredcandidateswholosebecauseredistricting   excludestoomuchoftheminorityelectoratefromaparticular `  district(illegalvotedilution)andminoritypreferredcandidates  \  wholosebecausetheydonotattractenoughvotesfromotherfolks   withinthedistrict(legalmajoritarianrule).Theamended d  complaint,evenwhentakenatfacevalue,blursthisdistinction. `   ` Mycolleaguesattempttoblunttheforceofthis   reasoningintwoways.First,theypositthatvotedilutionclaims h mustbedecidedbasedonthetotalityofthecircumstances.That d isso"butthestatutoryprovisiontheycite,42U.S.C.1973(b),  doesnotinoculateallsuchclaimsagainstRule12(b)(6) l challenges.Aplaintiffclassmustdomorethancry"vote h dilution"toengagethegearsoftheVRA.TheGingles  preconditionsactasasentryatthegates"abrightlinerule p  thatmustbesatisfiedbeforethetotalityofthecircumstances !l" comesintoplay.SeeValdespinov.AlamoHeightsIndep.Sch. "$ Dist.,168F.3d848,852(5thCir.1999)(collectingcases);City t$& ofCarrolltonBranchofN.A.A.C.P.v.Stallings,829F.2d1547,  &p!( 155051(11thCir.1987).Thisframeworkhelpsensurethe '#* effectivenessoftheremedycreatedbytheVRAwithoutdistorting  eitheritsscopeorintent. \  ` Mycolleagues'secondgambitistostressthatRhode X Islandelectsitsstatesenatorsunderwhatamountstoaplurality   system.Thisseemstometobeabitofaredherring.Ontheone `  hand,casesholdingplaintiffstotherequirementsofthefirst  \  Ginglespreconditiondespitetheexistenceofapluralityelection   systemareubiquitous.j #  20      ׀See,e.g.,Perezv.PasadenaIndep.Sch. d  Dist.,165F.3d368,37071(5thCir.1999);Stablerv.Countyof `  Thurston,129F.3d1015,1025(8thCir.1997);Canev.Worcester   County,35F.3d921,924n.4,925(4thCir.1994);McNeilv. h SpringfieldParkDist.,851F.2d937,94344(7thCir.1988).On d theotherhand,casesinwhichcourtshaverecognizedasection2  claimbymembersofasmallminoritygroupsimplybecausethey l resideinajurisdictionthatemploysapluralityelectionsystem h arenonexistent.Moreover,pluralityelectionrulesare,asmy  colleaguesapparentlyconcede,moreresponsivetominorityvoters p  thansimplemajorityelectionrules.Itwouldbeironictorelax !l" thefirstGinglespreconditionforvotedilutionclaimsarising "$ underanelectoralstructurealreadymorefavorabletominorities.  Italsowouldmakelittlesense,politicallyormathematically,to \ proclaimthatapluralityrulesupportsaminoritygroup'sability X toelectwhenitsmembersnumber26%oftheelectorateyetutterly   foreclosesthatabilitywhentheynumber21%oftheelectorate. `   ` Last"butfarfromleast"mycolleagues'relianceon  \  theexistenceofapluralityelectionsystemignoresthe   vicissitudesofsuchsystems.Forexample,inelectionsinwhich d  onlytwocandidatesareontheballotorinwhichoneofseveral `  candidatesenjoysgreatpopularity,minoritieswillhavetomuster   aclearmajorityofallvotescastinordertoelectthecandidate h oftheirchoice.Thepermutationsareendless.Tomymind,this d meansthattheputativeeffectsofapluralityvotingsystemare  simplytoospeculativetoprovideabasisforaconvincingvote l dilutionclaim.SeeBrewerv.Ham,876F.2d448,45556(5thCir. h 1989);McNeil,851F.2dat944.Theseproblemsmayexplainwhythe  appellantsnevermadereferencetoRhodeIsland'splurality p  electionlawsintheiramendedcomplaintortheirappellatebriefs. !l"  ` Thatendsthisaspectofthematter.WhileIamwilling "$ toleaveopenthepossibilitythataracialminoritygroup t$& constitutinglessthan50%oftheelectorateinaparticular  &p!(  singlememberdistrictmayinspecialcircumstancessatisfythe '#* firstGinglesprecondition,l #  21      ׀thefactsallegedinthiscasereflect   nosuchspecialcircumstances.Iconclude,therefore,thatthe \ appellants'claimdoesnotandcannotsatisfythefirstGingles X precondition.    ` Ifmorewereneeded"andIdoubtthatitis"the `  appellants'claimalsofailstosatisfythethirdGingles  \  precondition.Thatpreconditionrequiresashowingofnonminority   blocvoting(which,forpurposesofthiscase,encompassesthe d  combinedvotingpowerofwhitesandHispanics).Here,sucha `  showingisinconsistentwiththethemearoundwhichtheappellants'   caseisconstructed. h  ` TheappellantsshowcaseSenatorWalton'spastelectoral d successesasproofofthecogencyoftheirabilitytoelectclaim  "butthisisatwoedgedsword.Consistentelectoralsuccesson l thepartofaracialorethnicminoritygroupthatcomprises h considerablylessthananumericalmajorityoftheelectorateis  indicativeoftheabsenceofnonminorityblocvotingand,thus,is p  presumptivelyinconsistentwiththethirdGinglesprecondition. !l" SeeGingles,478U.S.at102(O'Connor,J.,concurring);seealso  S.ChristianLeadershipConf.,56F.3dat129194(findingnowhite \ blocvotingwhereAfricanAmericans,thoughlessthananumerical X majority,hadbeenlargelysuccessfulinelectingtheirpreferred   candidates);Overtonv.CityofAustin,871F.2d529,540(5thCir. `  1989)(percuriam)(similar);seealsoBrooksv.Miller,158F.3d  \  1230,1241(11thCir.1998)(notingthatclaimsdependenton   substantialwhitecrossovervotingareinherentlyinconsistentwith d  fulfillmentofthethirdGinglesprecondition);Turnerv.Arkansas, `  784F.Supp.553,57071(E.D.Ark.1991)(threejudgecourt)   (similar).Thislineofcasesreflectsacommonsenseproposition: h thattheabilityofaracialminoritygroupactuallytoelectits d preferredcandidatemaydependuponsuchahighdegreeofcrossover  votingthatthethirdGinglespreconditioninevitablyfailsof l satisfaction.Soitishere:theappellants'relianceonahigh h levelofcrossovervoting,rangingupwardfromaminimumof32%and  nearlyequallingthewholeoftheAfricanAmericanvote, p   defenestratestheirclaimofillegalvotedilution.n #  22       !l"  ` Theappellants"andmycolleagues"citeafewcases   suggesting(orsotheysay)thatahighrateofcrossovervoting \ doesnotnecessarilyprecludeafindingofraciallypolarized X voting.See,e.g.,Gingles,478U.S.at5961(upholdinglower   court'sfindingofwhiteblocvotingdespitewhitecrossovervoting `  rangingfrom8%to50%);Camposv.CityofBaytown,840F.2d1240,  \  1249(5thCir.1988)(upholdinglowercourt'sfindingofwhitebloc   votingdespitethefactthat3%to37%ofwhitescrossedover). d  Butallofthesecasesaddressedmultimemberoratlargedistricts `  "situationsthatposeamuchmoresubtlethreattominority   electoralstrengthpreciselybecausetheyrequirehigherlevelsof h crossovervotingforminoritiestoprevail.p #  23      ׀SeeGrowe,507U.S. d at40;Cane,35F.3dat926;seealsoS.Rep.No.97417,at29  (1982),reprintedin1982U.S.C.C.A.N.177,206. Intherealmof l challengestosinglememberredistrictingplans,nolessan h authoritythantheSupremeCourthasheldaveragemajority  crossovervotingof22%to38%sufficienttodemonstratethe p  "generalwillingnessof[majority]voterstovotefor[minority] !l" candidates,"particularlyinconjunctionwitharecordof  significantsuccessbyminoritycandidates.Abramsv.Johnson,521 \ U.S.74,9293(1997)(citationandinternalquotationmarks X omitted);cf.Voinovich,507U.S.at15152,158(approvinglower   court'sfindingofnomajorityblocvotingwhere"blackcandidates `  havebeenrepeatedlyelectedfrom[singlemember]districtswith  \  onlya35%blackpopulation").    ` Tobesure,theappellantsasseveratethattheirpast d  victoriesoccurredonlybecausethe"old"district(inwhich `  AfricanAmericanscomprisedapproximately26%ofthepopulation)   wasdifferentthanthe"new"district(inwhichAfricanAmericans h compriseapproximately21%ofthepopulation).Butthismodest d changeinthelevelofAfricanAmericanpenetrationdoesnotrender  thevoters'trackrecordirrelevant.Whatevertheprecisenumbers, l AfricanAmericanswereandareanumericalminorityinthedistrict h "andtheappellantsareineffectarguingthatwhenevercrossover  votingislargeenoughtosecurethesuccessofaminority p  preferredcandidate,thatcrossovervotingcannotbeusedto !l" disprovenonminorityblocvoting.Sucharulewouldconflictwith "$ boththerealitiesofmodernpoliticsandtheobjectivesofsection t$& 2.ThebetterruleisthatwhenAfricanAmericansconstitutea  &p!( relativelysmallnumericalminorityyetrepeatedlyattracta '#*  crossovervotesizableenoughtoelecttheirpreferredcandidate, x)$, thatfactishighlyrelevantto(and,ashere,maybeconclusive  in)ananalysisofthethirdGinglesprecondition. \   ` Inafinalefforttosalvagethevotedilutionclaim,my X colleaguespositthatwecannotmakeanydeterminationsastothe   thirdGinglespreconditionuntilwehaveevidenceofvoter `  registration,turnout,andvotingpatterns.Thatmightordinarily  \  betrue"buttheappellantshavenotpresenteduswithanordinary   votedilutionclaim.Rather,theymakeaveryspecificandhighly d  idiosyncraticclaimpremisedonthenotionthatatleast32%ofthe `  whiteandHispanicpopulationcanbeexpectedregularlytocross   overinordertoformthemajorityrequiredbythefirstGingles h precondition.Thisapproachinextricablyintertwinesthefirstand d thirdGinglespreconditions,sothatallowancesgivenastoone  necessarilyhaverepercussionsastotheother.SeeSanchezv. l Colorado,97F.3d1303,1315(10thCir.1996)(remarkingthe h interrelatednessofthesepreconditions);Jenkins,4F.3dat1133  n.32(same).Thatisonereasonwhythiscasecannotsurvivea p  motiontodismiss. !l"  ` Although"thedegreeofracialblocvotingthatis "$ cognizableasanelementofa2votedilutionclaimwillvary t$& accordingtoavarietyoffactualcircumstances,"Gingles,478U.S.  &p!( at5758,thetouchstoneofthethirdGinglespreconditionis '#* whetherthemajorityvotessufficientlyasabloctoenableitto x)$, defeattheminority'spreferredcandidatemostofthetime.See $+t&. id.at56;Sanchez,97F.3dat1319.CrossovervotinginSouth  ProvidenceenabledAfricanAmericanvotersregularlytoelectthe \ candidateoftheirchoicedespitetherelativelysmallAfrican X Americanconstituencyinthepredecessordistrict.Thisisa   tellingbitofpoliticalhistory.SeeGingles,478U.S.at56 `  (notingthattheamountofnonminorityblocvotingthatislegally  \  significantvariesinpartwiththesizeoftheminoritygroup   withinthedistrict);Rangelv.Morales,8F.3d242,245(5thCir. d  1993)(same).Itdemonstratestomysatisfactionthatnolegally `  cognizableantiminorityblocvotingexistshere(andthat,   therefore,theappellantshavefailedtomeetthethirdGingles h precondition). d  ` Igivethemajorityitsdue.Intheordinarycourse,  districtcourtsshouldallowcolorablevotedilutionclaimsto l proceedbeyondtheRule12(b)(6)stage.And,moreover,ifoneis h willingtosplitaninfinitenumberofhairs,italwayswillbe  possibletoconjureupremotescenariosthatmightbedisinterred p  duringdiscovery(and,thus,preventtheentryofamotionto !l" dismiss).ButRule12(b)(6)doesnotinvitecourtstoengagein "$ suchendlessconjecture.SeeGarrettv.TandyCorp.,295F.3d94, t$& 105(1stCir.2002)("ThemethodofRule12(b)(6)requirescourts  &p!( ...toresolveallrealisticpossibilitiesinthepleader's '#* favor."(emphasissupplied)).Somecasesaresufficientlyclear x)$, that,onanyrationalviewofthefactsalleged,avotedilution $+t&. claimisinsupportable.SeeMixsonv.Ohio,193F.3d389,399400,  40608(6thCir.1999)(affirmingdismissalofsection2claim \ underRule12(b)(6));Mirrionev.Anderson,717F.2d743,746(2d X Cir.1983)(similar);Martinezv.Bush,234F.Supp.2d1275,1280   n.7(S.D.Fla.2002)(threejudgecourt)(percuriam)(granting `  defendants'Rule12(b)(6)motionwithrespecttoasection2  \  claim).Thisissuchacase:theallegationsareunapologetic,   thekeyfactsareessentiallyundisputed,andtheamendedcomplaint d  standsorfallsonthecogencyoftheappellants'avantgardelegal `  theory.Likethedistrictcourt,Ifindthattheoryunacceptable.    ` Iaddacoda.Reapportionmentandredistrictingare h thornymatters"andmattersinwhichstatelegislaturesarebest d suitedtolead.Withinwidelimits,courtsoughttorespect  legislativechoices.SeeVoinovich,507U.S.at15657(collecting l cases).Iunderstandthatrespectisnotequivalenttoblind h allegiance,andifthereweresignsthattheRhodeIslandGeneral  AssemblyhadactedinderogationoftheConstitutionorfederal p  law,Iwouldnothesitatetosupportjudicialintervention.But !l" suchsignsarelackinghere,sorespectcounselsrestraint. "$  ` GiventhemixedracialandethniccompositionofSouth t$& Providence,theRhodeIslandGeneralAssemblywascaughtbetweena  &p!( rockandahardplace.Itmadeaseriesofdifficultchoices,not '#* perfectly,butwithinthecompassofitslegalandconstitutional x)$, authority.WhetherornotIwouldhavedrawnthelinesofthe $+t&. affecteddistrictinthesamemannerisbesidethepoint.What  mattersisthattheGeneralAssembly'slinedrawingisaproductof \ legitimatelegislativechoicesmadewithinallowablelimits. X Acceptingtheappellants'votedilutionclaimwouldnullifythese   choicesandgiveanunfairadvantagetoaparticularsubsetof `  voters"anadvantagebeyondanythatCongresscontemplatedin  \  draftingtheVRA.Inthebargain,acceptingtheclaimwouldshrink   thedistrictwideHispanicpopulation,therebydisadvantaging d  anothergroupofminorityvoters. `   ` Ihavesaidmypiece.Becausetheappellantsfailto   allegethekindofimpermissiblyracebaseddistortionofelectoral h opportunitythatwouldsustainaclaimundersection2oftheVRA, d Irespectfullydissent.