WPCa; A+ߏ\"߰0(&Vn]WHvJ=yȸfT*^wXFFH=\hZ_a"E#Ƽ!y x-8[r*,6SGU .16è[{.oizO 6[b=hW[SeV߬s C^؀8I EpvC3Do0iCBn"V8C,PNX YG҄j8 2-+s[mbHE_+DT"_X%3;f)v*tdb2XO]8Wa}v6Y{5T@+k@ߧ>b鄯7OⱮ(?:U)u_! sY'@?M_K F54|YpT 2+SpS&-4OAhgA -YZJy\. 6yim5c#j %+ 0D1 0Gu U: 0 U8 nT Ng UNi UF ^ w 4 ! 0 E2 f4 a6 mJ a Ni 0Uk 0 0 0 0r 0R 0/ 0  0 0C 0 0 0 0s 0A 0  B 0 0 0@v 0 0 0[ 0) 0 0 0 0C! 00" 0<0" 0l" 0>*# 0vh# 0`# 0`>$ 0`$ 0`$ 0`^% 08% 0% 02& 0& 0:' 0Y0( 0_( 0 ( 0j) 0\+ B*, D/ - D+9- 0d- D/. 0/ 06/ 00 0:#1 0^]1 0<1 1e1 1u\2 722N3>3U6C3U>y3U*3N3 723N4>4UBU4b4b4848HP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0X(#$  0  ($XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(:2`$ !X\tXXX    =\tXdd=    0  <4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@vr Z6Times New Roman Regular<4 9Z+.Courier New RegularM~0s P/0rxeL3|xTABLE 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   d*5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_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 $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKW<6X9`(Courier NewKSX\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KW<6X9`(Courier NewKSX\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KW<6X9`(Courier NewKSX\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7H(X7  ?Y%2A`Arial?  SX\  `&Times New RomanS7I(X7&  d dG)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7K(X7  ?Y%2A`Arial?  SX\  `&Times New RomanS7I(X7G)2dxd0KS.SampleKW<6X9`(Courier NewKSX\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKW<6X9`(Courier NewKSX\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !"#$%&( 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Si)q:\template\OPINIONS\SELYA.WPT<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`ArialSi)q:\template\OPINIONS\SELYA.WPT<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -- - . `$XB(XXX  =B(Xdd=    1    _Thereareobviousdangersinapplyingtheprinciplefavoring  furtherfactualdevelopmenttooliberally.Ifoneiswillingto  splitaninfinitenumberofhairs,italwayswillbepossibleto \ conjureupremotescenariosthatmightbedisinterredduring 2 discovery(and,thus,mightpreventtheallowanceofamotionto X dismiss).Rule12(b)(6)doesnotinvitecourtstoengageinsuch . endlesssurmise;rather,"[_t]he_ԀmethodofRule12(b)(6)requires   courts...toresolveallrealisticpossibilitiesinthe   pleader'sfavor."_Garrett_v.TandyCorp.,295F.3d94,105(1st `  Cir.2002)(emphasissupplied).  ' Turner0Turner .    !XB(XXX  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * ! X XXXB( X X      UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals ]   FortheFirstCircuit  H ] XB(X H  A') ` dE<` A   No.022204   @ HAROLD_METTS_,ETAL., K  @Plaintiffs,Appellants,  G  @tt)v.   @l l WILLIAMJ.MURPHY,ETC.,ETAL., O  @Defendants,Appellees. K  A') ` dE<` A  @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT  @*@l l FORTHEDISTRICTOFRHODEISLAND 8 @ [Hon.ErnestC.Torres,U.S.DistrictJudge] 4 A') ` dE<` A  @'Before u   @@((Boudin,ChiefJudge, !q TorruellaandSelya,CircuitJudges, G Stahl,SeniorCircuitJudge,  Lynch,LipezandHoward,CircuitJudges.   A') ` dE<N ` A O "       AnitaEarls,UNCCenterforCivilRights,withwhom_Sunil_ԀR. 4!$ _Kulkarni_,Morrison&_Foerster_Ԁ_LLP_,Cara_Fineman_,Lawyers'Committee  "Z% forCivilRightsUnderLaw,DennisHayes,NAACPLegalDepartment, "0& andBruceG.Pollockwereonsupplementalopeningbrieffor #' appellants. $(   NadineCohen,_Lawyers'_ԀCommitteeForCivilRightsUnderLawof b% ) theBostonBarAssociation,RudolphF.Pierce,BarbaraVan_Gorder_, 8&!* Heather_Butterfield_and_Goulston_Ԁ&_Storrs_,P.C.onbriefforAngel '^"+ _Meza_,Gabriel_Valerio_,JuanVega,Chelsea'sCommissiononHispanic '4#, Affairs,Inc.,and_Oiste_?:TheMassachusettsStatewideLatino ( $- Organization,AmicusCuriae. )$.   KatherineA.Fallow,SamHirschandJenner&Block_LLP_on f*%/ supplementarybriefforthePuertoRicanPoliticalActionCommittee <+&0 andDirectActionforRightsandEquality,AmicusCuriae. ,b'1   ,8(2?L _  NeilBradley,ACLUFoundationInc.,andLaughlinMcDonald,  ACLUFoundationInc.,onsupplementalbriefforAmericanCivil  LibertiesUnionandRhodeIslandAffiliateoftheAmericanCivil \ LibertiesUnion,AmicusCuriae. 2   JohnA._Tarantino_withwhomPatriciaK.Rocha,VictoriaM. X _Almeida_,AdlerPollock&_Sheehan_ԀP.C.,NormandG._Benoit_,EugeneG. . Bernardo,II,Partridge,Snow&Hahn_LLP_,RichardB._Woolley_,   DepartmentofAttorneyGeneral,ThomasA._Palombo_,Departmentof   AttorneyGeneral,andRaymondA._Marcaccio_wereonbrieffor `  appelleesJosephA._Montalbano_,SenatePresident,WilliamJ. 6   Murphy,SpeakeroftheHouseofRepresentatives,MatthewA.Brown,  \  SecretaryofState,andRogerBegin,StateBoardofElections  2  Chairman.   @_____________________ d  Ѐ :  @hh#OPINIONENBANC `  *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +      SI p `@38075`@SMarch30,2004 F  RHC" `@38075 `@ R( p  (  * !   T   8^B(^XXdd8_*,X` XX* ` PerCuriam . InFebruary2002,theRhodeIsland  legislatureadoptedaredistrictingplaninresponsetothe2000 x censusandastateconstitutionalamendmentreducingthenumberof $t seatsinbothhouses.Basedontheallegationsinthecomplaint,   itappearsthatAfricanAmericansareabout4percentofRhode |  Island'spopulation,butmorethanhalfliveinProvidence.Prior ( x  toredistricting,StateSenateDistrict9inProvidencewas25.69 $  percentAfricanAmericanand41.08percentHispanic.Until   redistricting,anAfricanAmerican,CharlesWalton,hadrepresented ,|  District9formanyyears. (  ` Underthe2002redistrictingplan,muchofthesame  AfricanAmericanpopulationnowlieswithinthenewDistrict2, 0 whichallegedlyis21.42percentAfricanAmericanand46.74percent , Hispanic.Inthe2002primaryafterredistricting,aLatino  challengerdefeatedWaltonandwentontowintheelection.Well 4 beforetheprimary,inMay2002,anumberofindividualAfrican 0 Americanvotersandrelatedorganizationsbroughtthepresentsuit   undersection2oftheVotingRightsAct,42U.S.C.1973(2000), 8!" tochallengetheredistrictingplan. "4$  ` InSeptember2002,thedistrictcourtgrantedamotion $& underFed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6)todismissthecomplaint,_Metts_v. <&!( Almond,217F.Supp.2d252(_D.R.I._Ԁ2002),holdingthattheclaim '8#* failedtwoofthethreethresholdtestsforasection2caseunder )$, _Thornburg_v._Gingles_,478U.S.30(1986).Onappeal,adivided @+&. panelofthiscourtreversed,remandingforfurtherproceedings.  _Metts_v.Murphy,347F.3d346(1stCir.2003). \  ` Wegrantedthedefendants'petitionforrehearingenbanc X andvacatedthepanelopinion._Metts_v.Murphy,No.02-2204,2003   U.S.App.LEXIS24313(1stCir.Dec.3,2003).Wenowreviewand `  vacatethedistrictcourt'sjudgmentofdismissalandremandfor  \  furtherproceedings.Thereasonforourremandistoallowa   fullerdevelopmentoftheevidence,andfurtherlegalanalysis d  basedonthatevidence,beforeanyfinaldeterminationismade. `   ` Section2,adoptedaspartoftheVotingRightsActof   1965,forbidsvotingrelatedmeasuresthatdenyorabridgethe h righttovote"onaccountofraceorcolor."42U.S.C.1973. d Undera1982amendment,aviolationisestablished"if,basedon  thetotalityofcircumstances,itisshownthat...membersofa l classofcitizens...havelessopportunitythanothermembersof h theelectoratetoparticipateinthepoliticalprocessandtoelect  representativesoftheirchoice."1973(b). p   ` TheDelphiclanguageoftheamendmentcanbeunderstood !l" onlyagainstthebackgroundofitslegislativehistoryand "$ subsequentSupremeCourtinterpretation.Theformertellsusthat t$& discriminatoryintentisnotanecessaryelementinaviolationand  &p!( thatCongressintendedabroadrangeoffactorstobetakeninto '#*  account.Thesepoints,andtherelevantcitations,aredeveloped x)$, in_Gingles_,thefirstpostamendmentdecisiononsection2bythe  Courtandstilltheleadingauthority.478U.S.at4346. \   ` However,_Gingles_wasprimarilyconcernedwiththeuseof X multimemberdistricts,whichhaveanobviouspotentialtosubmerge   theelectoralpowerofevenasubstantialandcohesiveminority `  bloc.478U.S.at4648&nn.1113.Ifsuchagrouprepresentsa  \  majorityofvotesinasinglememberdistrictbutanumerical   minoritywhencombinedwithanadjoiningdistrictordistricts,the d  combiningofthosedistrictsintoonemultimemberdistrictcan `  easilyeliminatetheminority'sabilitytoelectoneoftheirown   toanyoftheseats. h  ` In_Gingles_,theSupremeCourtsetupathreeparttest, d rulingthatsection2wouldordinarilynotbeviolatedbymulti  memberdistrictsunlessthreeconditionsweremet:thatthe l minoritychallengingsuchadistrictwouldbe"amajority"ina h compactsinglememberdistrict;thattheminoritywaspolitically  cohesive(soitwouldblocvoteinsuchadistrict);andthatthe p  multidistrictmajorityvotedasabloc(soitwouldusuallydefeat !l" theminority'scandidateinamultimemberdistrict)._Gingles_,478 "$ U.S.at5051.Ifsatisfied,thesepreconditionswouldnotendthe t$& casebutwouldraiseapresumptionofaviolation._Vecinos_ԀDe  &p!( BarrioUnov.CityofHolyoke,72F.3d973,980(1stCir.1995); '#* seealsoJohnsonv._DeGrandy_,512U.S.997,1011(1994)(_Gingles_ x)$, preconditionsnecessarybutnotsufficienttoestablishclaim). $+t&.  ` _Gingles_wasdirectedtoaparticularpracticemulti  memberdistrictswhichtheCourtsuggestedwasparticularly \ problematic,478U.S.at4748;_Growe_v._Emison_,507U.S.25,40 X (1993),andthedecisiondidnotpurporttoofferageneralor   exclusiveglossonsection2forallsituations,_Gingles_,478U.S. `  at46n.12.Buttheconcretenessofthe_Gingles_test,setagainst  \  thevaguenessofthestatuteandplethoraofcriteria,hasmadeit   afocusinsubsequentcasesdealingwithquitedifferentproblems. d  Indeed,theSupremeCourthassaidseveraltimesthat_Gingles_ `  appliestovotedilutionclaimsdirectedagainstsinglemember   districts,see,e.g.,_Voinovich_v._Quilter_,507U.S.146,158 h (1993);_Growe_,507U.S.at4041,butithaseffectivelyqualified d thisstatementintwodifferentways.   ` First,severalSupremeCourtopinionsafter_Gingles_have l offeredtheprospect,oratleastclearlyreservedthepossibility, h that_Gingles_'firstpreconditionthataracialminoritymustbe  abletoconstitutea"majority"inasinglememberdistrictcould p  extendtoagroupthatwasanumericalminoritybuthadpredictable !l" crossoversupportfromothergroups._DeGrandy_,512U.S.at1008 "$ 09;_Voinovich_,507U.S.at158("[_T]he_Ԁfirst_Gingles_precondition, t$& therequirementthatthegroupbesufficientlylargetoconstitute  &p!( amajorityinasingledistrict,wouldhavetobemodifiedor '#* eliminatedwhenanalyzingtheinfluence-dilutionclaimweassume, x)$, arguendo,tobeactionabletoday.").Further,theCourthassofar $+t&. reservedjudgmentonasecondcousinquestion:whetherdilutionof  aminorityracialgroup'sinfluence,asopposedtothepowerto \ elect,couldviolatesection2apositionthatwouldrequire X substantialmodificationof_Gingles_'firstprong"majority"   precondition._Growe_,507U.S.at41n.5;_Vecinos_ԀdeBarrioUno, `  72F.3dat99091.  \   ` Second,wheresinglememberdistrictsareatissueasin   ourcaseopinionshaveincreasinglyemphasizedtheopenended, d  multifactorinquirythatCongressintendedforsection2claims. `  _Voinovich_,507U.S.at158("Ofcourse,the_Gingles_factorscannot   beappliedmechanicallyandwithoutregardtothenatureofthe h claim.");_DeGrandy_,512U.S.at1007(same).Tosaythat_Gingles_ d appliesasapreconditiontosection2liabilitymaynottellone  verymuchif_Gingles_itselfisnolongertobe"mechanically" l applied._Gingles_wasinitsoriginalincarnationamechanical h firststepevaluationforaparticularproblem,soitsrationaleis  noteasilyadaptedbylowercourtstoadifferentsetofproblems. p   ` Thepresentcaseconcernsnotmultimemberdistrictsbut !l" aredrawingofsinglememberdistrictboundaries.Inonekey "$ districtthishasproducedamodestreadjustmentinthe t$& proportionatesizesofthetwolargeminoritygroupsbuta  &p!( readjustmentthatcertainlycanaffectwhowinstheelection.So '#* fartheparties'argumenthasbeenaboutwhetherandhowtosqueeze x)$, thiscaseintothe_Gingles_preconditions_Ԅ_raisingdifficult $+t&. questionsaboutwhetherthe"majority"requirementin_Gingles_isa  numericalmajorityoraneffectivemajoritythatcouldbe \ constructedoutofcrossovervotes;howrigidlythe_Gingles_ X preconditionsapplywhenmovingawayfrommultimemberdistricts;   andhowtoapply_Gingles_whennoracialgroupmakesupmorethan50 `  percentofthedistrict.  \   ` Itisnoaccidentthatmostcasesundersection2have   beendecidedonsummaryjudgmentorafteraverdict,andnotona d  motiontodismiss.Thiscautionisespeciallyaptwhere,ashere, `  wearedealingwithamajorvariantnotaddressedin_Gingles_   itself_Ԅ_thesinglememberdistrictandonewitharelatively h unusualhistory.Ascourtsgetmoreexperiencedealingwiththese d casesandtherulesfirmup,itmaybemorefeasibletodismiss  weakercasesonthepleadings,butinthecasebeforeuswethink l thattheplaintiffsareentitledtoanopportunitytodevelop h evidencebeforethemeritsareresolved.   ` Wearethusunwillingatthecomplaintstagetoforeclose p  thepossibilitythatasection2claimcaneverbemadeoutwhere !l" theAfricanAmericanpopulationofasinglememberdistrictis "$ reducedinredistrictinglegislationfrom26to21percent.Yes, t$& onewouldordinarilyexpecttheconsequencestobesmall,butnot  &p!( always,andarguablynothere(basedonpasthistory).Atthis '#* pointweknowpracticallynothingaboutthemotiveforthechange x)$, indistrictortheselectionofthepresentconfiguration,the $+t&. contoursofthedistrictchosenorthefeasiblealternatives,the  impactofalternativedistrictsonotherminorities,oranything \ elsethatwouldhelpgaugehowmechanicallyorflexiblythe_Gingles_ X factorsshouldbeapplied.    ` Ontheotherhand,theplaintiffscannotprevailmerely `  byshowingthatanalternativeplangivesthemagreater  \  opportunitytowintheelection,_DeGrandy_,512U.S.at1017   ("Failuretomaximizecannotbethemeasureof2."),orthatan d  otherwisejustifiedboundarychangehappenedtocostAfrican `  Americansaseat.Thiswouldconvertsection2'sallcircumstances   testintothefarmorestringent"antiretrogression"testof h section5,whichimposesrigorouspreclearancerequirementson d coveredstatestopreventredistrictingplanswithretrogressive  consequencesforAfricanAmericanvoters.Compare42U.S.C. l 1973(a)(b)(2000),with42U.S.C.1973c(2000).Seegenerally h Beerv.UnitedStates,425U.S.130,141(1976)(antiretrogression  test);Renov.BossierParishSch.Bd.,520U.S.471,47680(1997) p  (discussingdifferencesbetweensections2and5).RhodeIslandis !l" notacoveredstate. "$  ` Asthedistrictcourtcorrectlypointedout,thereis t$& tensioninthiscaseforplaintiffsinanyefforttosatisfyboth  &p!( thefirstandthirdprongof_Gingles_.TotheextentthatAfrican '#* Americanvotershavetorelyoncross_Ԅover_Ԁvotingtoprovethey x)$, havethe"abilitytoelect"acandidateoftheirchoosing,their $+t&. argumentthatthemajorityvotesasablocagainsttheirpreferred  candidateisundercut.Butitisnotclearonthepleadingsalone \ howmanycrossovervotesareneededtowinanelectionunlikein X _Gingles_,RhodeIslandlawallowsacandidatetowinwithlessthan   anabsolutemajority,seeR.I.Const.art.IV,2(general `  elections);R.I.Gen.Laws17-15-29(2002)(primaryelections)  \  nordowehaveanyevidenceatthisstageabouthowvigorouslythe   majorityvotesasablocovertime,northeimpactofthefactthat d  the"majority"hereismadeupofbothHispanicsandwhites. `  _Gingles_itselfwarnedthat"thereisnosimpledoctrinaltestfor   theexistenceoflegallysignificantracialblocvoting,"478U.S. h at58,afurtherwarningagainstdecidingsuchissuesinthe d abstract.   ` Theburdenofinquiryisontheplaintiffstheyarethe l oneschallengingtheredistrictingplanbutinthiscasetheyare h entitled(withinordinarylimits)todeveloptheevidencethatthey  thinkmighthelpthem.Whetherafullscaletrialisneededisan p  entirelydifferentmatter;perhapssummaryjudgmentwillsuffice !l" dependingonhowtheevidencedevelopsandtheultimatetheoryor "$ theoriesofferedbybothsidestheoriesthathopefullywillgo t$& beyondduelingclaimsastowhat_Gingles_means.Inallevents,it  &p!(  isprematuretoclosethedoornow. '#*  ` Thejudgmentofthedistrictcourtisvacatedandthe  matterremandedforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththis \ opinion.Eachsideshallbearitsowncostsonthisappeal. X   ` Itissoordered.   @,," Dissentfollows.   &p!(   @+&. `_ ` SELYA,CircuitJudge,withwhomTORRUELLA,CircuitJudge,  joins,dissenting. Iappreciatethemeasuredtoneofthemajority x opinion,andIagreewithmuchofwhatthecourtwrites:section @ 2oftheVotingRightsAct(_VRA_),42U.S.C.1973,vergesonthe  < opaqueandtheSupremeCourtprecedentinterpretingitleavesmany   questionsunanswered.Moreover,Iacknowledgethat,inthe D   ordinarycourse,districtcourtsshouldallowvotedilutionclaims @  toproceedbeyondtheRule12(b)(6)stage.Thus,werethisan   arguablecase,factualdevelopmentwouldbepreferabletooutright H  dismissal. D  ` Here,however,thecaseisnotarguable._a #  1      _ԀThe  plaintiffs'claimdependsuponaradicalpremise:thataminority L groupwhosememberscannotconceivablycompriseanythingcloseto H anumericalmajority,eveninwhatisfromtheirpointofviewan  ideallyconfiguredsinglememberdistrict,canmountavote P dilutionclaim.Giventhesmallsizeoftheidentifiedminority L groupinthiscaseandthemagnitudeofthecrossovervotingon   whichitmustrely,theclaimnecessarilyfails.See_Valdespino_v. T!" AlamoHeights_Indep_.Sch.Dist.,168F.3d848,85253(5thCir.  1999);Cousinv._Sundquist_,145F.3d818,82829(6thCir.1998); \ _McNeil_v.SpringfieldParkDist.,851F.2d937,94345(7thCir. X 1988);Parkerv.Ohio,263F.Supp.2d1100,110405(S.D.Ohio)   (threejudgecourt),_aff'd_mem.,124S.Ct.574(2003).Further `  factualdevelopment,therefore,willonlyraisefalsehopesinthe  \  AfricanAmericancommunitywhileatthesametimesquandering   scarcejudicialresources. d   ` Iwillbebrief.TheplaintiffsallegethatAfrican `  Americansrepresentedapproximately26%oftherelevantpopulation   informerSenateDistrict9yetrepresentonly21%ofthe h populationinthenewdistrict(SenateDistrict2).They d characterizethis5%differentialasapoliticalkissofdeathand  askthatthedistrictlinesberedrawnsothat,intheirideal l district,AfricanAmericansagainwillnumber26%ofthe h population.   ` Strippedofrhetoricalflourishes,thepostulate p  underlyingtheplaintiffs'claimproceedsalongthefollowing !l" lines.WheneveracandidatepreferredbyAfricanAmericansruns "$ forthestatesenateinthenewdistrict,heorshewillreceive t$& alltheAfricanAmericanvotesplusnolessthan32%butnomore  &p!( than37%ofthecombinedwhiteandHispanicvotes(thesebeingthe '#* percentagesofallwhiteandHispanicvotersnecessarytoforma x)$, majorityinconjunctionwithamonolithicAfricanAmericanvote $+t&. whenAfricanAmericansconstitute26%and21%ofthepopulation,  respectively). Whetherviewedasamatteroflogic,political \ science,orhumanbehavior,thispostulate,whichassumesthatthe X electorate'spolarizationissodeeplyentrenchedthatcandidate   specificvariationswilloperateonlywithina5%margin,strikes `  measfanciful.Moreover,theimpetusbehinditistheplaintiffs'  \  convictionthattheycanforgesomesortoffunctionalmajority,   i.e.,thatAfricanAmericans,thoughnotnumerousenoughto d  compriseanythingclosetoamajorityintheiridealdistrict, `  nonethelesswillhavetheabilitytoelectaparticularcandidate   withtheaidofalargeandpredictablenonAfricanAmerican h crossovervote.Whatevermaybesaidforfunctionalmajority d claimsingeneral"amatteronwhichItakenoview"the  plaintiffs'functionalmajorityclaimlieswellbeyondthe l prophylaxisofsection2.Theminoritygroupdescribedinthe h amendedcomplaintcomprisestoosmallafractionofthedistrict's  totalpopulationand,therefore,mustrelytooheavilyoncrossover p  votes. !l"  ` Theplaintiffsseektoblinkthisrealitybytreating "$ crossovervotersasiftheyconstitutepartofaprotectedminority t$& withinthepurviewofsection2.Fidelitytocoredemocratic  &p!( valuesdemandsthatwerejectthistaxonomy.Althoughthe_Gingles_ '#* preconditionscontemplateacertaindegreeofcrossovervoting,see x)$, _Thornburg_v._Gingles_,478U.S.30,56(1986);Jenkinsv.RedClay $+t&. Consol.Sch.Dist.Bd.ofEduc.,4F.3d1103,1123(3dCir.1993),  thereisapointatwhichcrossovervotingbecomessolargeapart \ ofthepictureastocrowdoutthepossibilityofalegally X cognizablevotedilutionclaim.Thatisthecasehere;afterall,   the_bricolage_ԀcomprisesaroughlyequalmixofAfricanAmericanand `  crossovervoters.Underthesecircumstances,allowingavote  \  dilutionclaimtogoforwardwouldmakesenseonlyiftheendgame   weretoensurethesuccessofcandidatesfavoredbyminority d  groups.Thatisplainlynottheproperobjectofsection2ofthe `  _VRA_,whichisalawaimedatensuringequalityofopportunity   ratherthanatguaranteeingtheelectoralsuccessofparticular h candidates.SeeJohnsonv.De_Grandy_,512U.S.997,1014n.11 d (1994).   ` Theplaintiffs'claimalsotripsoverthethird_Gingles_ l precondition.See_Gingles_,478U.S.at56(explainingthat h plaintiffsmustshowtheexistenceof_majoritarian_Ԁblocvoting  sufficienttodefeatminoritypreferredcandidatesmostofthe p  time).Ashowingof_majoritarian_Ԁblocvotingisstructurally !l" inconsistentwiththeplaintiffs'expositionoftheircase.Their "$ relianceonahighlevelofcrossovervoting,rangingupwardfrom t$& aminimumof32%andnearlyequalingthewholeoftheAfrican  &p!( Americanvote,beliesany_majoritarian_Ԁblocvotingandthus '#* _defenestrates_Ԁtheirclaimofillegalvotedilution.See Abramsv. x)$, Johnson,521U.S.74,9293(1997)(affirminglowercourtdecision $+t&. thataveragemajoritycrossovervotingof22%to38%issufficient  todemonstratethe"generalwillingnessof[majority]votersto \ votefor[minority]candidates"(internalquotationmarks X omitted));cf._Voinovich_v._Quilter_,507U.S.146,15152,158   (1993)(approvinglowercourt'sfindingofnomajorityblocvoting `  where"blackcandidateshavebeenrepeatedlyelectedfrom[single  \  member]districtswithonlya35%blackpopulation").    ` TheplaintiffsshowcaseSenatorWalton'spastelectoral d  successesasproofofthecogencyoftheirabilitytoelectclaim `  "butthatdatumisatwoedgedsword.Consistentelectoral   successonthepartofaracialorethnicminoritygroupthat h comprisesconsiderablylessthananumericalmajorityofthe d electorateisatellingindiciumoftheabsenceof_majoritarian_  blocvotingand,thus,ispresumptivelyinconsistentwithan l actionablevotedilutionclaim.See_Gingles_,478U.S.at102 h (O'Connor,J.,concurring);_Overton_v.CityofAustin,871F.2d  529,540(5thCir.1989)(percuriam);seealsoBrooksv.Miller, p  158F.3d1230,1241(11thCir.1998);Turnerv.Arkansas,784F. !l" Supp.553,57071(E.D.Ark.1991)(threejudgecourt),_aff'd_mem., "$ 504U.S.952(1992). t$&  ` Inshort,Idonotbelievethatsection2ofthe_VRA_  &p!( authorizesvotedilutionclaimsthatarewhollydependentupon '#* massivecrossovervoting.Thereisacriticaldistinctionbetween x)$, minoritypreferredcandidateswholosebecauseredistricting $+t&. excludestoomuchoftheminorityelectoratefromaparticular  district(illegalvotedilution)andminoritypreferredcandidates \ wholosebecausetheydonotattractenoughvotesfromother X constituencieswithinthedistrict(legal_majoritarian_Ԁrule).The   amendedcomplaint,evenwhentakenatfacevalue,blursthis `  distinction.  \   ` Somevotedilutioncasesaresufficientlyclearthat,on   anyrationalviewofthefactsalleged,furtherproceedingsare d  inappropriate.Thisisoneofthem.Accordingly,Irespectfully `  dissentfromthecourt'sdecision.Lefttomyowndevices,Iwould   affirmtheorderofdismissal.