<x-flowed>DeGrandy is indeed on point.  I was a trial lawyer in that case.  Just to clarify, there was not proportional representation statewide.  Instead, the Court bought the State's argument that you should look at proportional representation based on a particular region within the state.
Another example is the VRA litigation  in the mid to late 90s concerning congressional redistricting in Chicago. (I can't recall the case name offhand).  That also concerned competition between Hispanics and African-Americans.  SJM
Daniel Schuman wrote:

Mr. Mayer,

See Johnson v. De Grandy (1994).  There was redistricting in State House and Senate in Florida, pitting two minorities (Cubans and Blacks) against one another.

Held: there is no discrimination claim b/c even though they met the Gingles test, proportional representation is good enough. Maximization of minority districts is not required. Souter: VRA protects against political famine, not feast. Section 2 is about equality of opportunity.

I think this is what you are looking for. Let me know,

Daniel Schuman
===============
Emory University School of Law
Class of 2006
404/312-8255


Kenneth R. Mayer wrote:

Can anyone provide information about how often different minority groups are at odds with each other over VRA issues?  Are there examples of litigation in which, for example, Hispanic and African American voters in a jurisdiction have both challenged a redistricting plan or other voting practice, alleging vote dilution, and sought changes which would affect the other groupÕs claims? How do judges balance these competing claims?

 

 

 

****************************************

Kenneth R. Mayer

Professor, Department of Political Science

1050 Bascom Mall

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Madison, WI  53706

(608) 263-2286/ fax (608) 265-2663

****************************************

 

</x-flowed>