# Patino v. City of Pasadena

> District Court, S.D. Texas · January 6, 2017 · 230 F. Supp. 3d 667

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7241761

## Case

- **Full name:** Alberto PATINO v. CITY OF PASADENA
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Texas
- **Decided:** January 6, 2017
- **Citations:** 230 F. Supp. 3d 667; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2529; 2017 WL 68467
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Rosenthal
- **Judges:** Rosenthal
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7241761

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding city council's electoral scheme "disproportionately and discriminatorily dilute[d] Latino minority voting strength" in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment

## Opinion text

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION SETTING OUT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Lee H. Rosenthal, Chief United States District Judge
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction... 673
I. The Law Governing the Court’s Inquiry, Findings, and Conclusions... 674
A. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fifteenth Amendment.. .675
B. The Fourteenth Amendment.. .676
II. Findings of Fact... 677
A. Procedural Background... 677
B. The Record Evidence... 678
1. Fact Witnesses... 678
2. Expert Witnesses... 680
*672 C. Pasadena’s Election Maps and Plans...681
D. Pasadena’s History... 682
1. Texas Laws Affecting Pasadena. . .682
2. Racially Discriminatory Ordinances and Official Activities in Pasadena ...684
3. Recent Private Racial Discrimination in Pasadena.. .685
E. Pasadena’s Demographics... 686
1. The Latino Population in Pasadena. . .686
2. Latino Citizen Voting-Age Population in Pasadena...687
3. The Eight Single-Member District Plan...690
4. The Six Single-Member District and Two At-Large Plan... 690
5. Racial Cohesion in Pasadena City Council Elections... 691
a. The 2015 AL-Large Race for Place G...691
b. The 2015 At-Large Race for Place H.. .692
c. The November 2013 Special Election on Proposition 1... 692
d. The 2015 District-Level Elections ...692
e. Exogenous Elections... 693
(1). Countywide Elections... 693
(2). Primary Elections... 694
f. Findings on Racially Cohesive Voting in Pasadena Elections... 694
6. Socioeconomic Conditions and the Effects on Pasadena Voting.. .695
a. Income, Education, and Employment. . .695
b. Living Conditions... 695
c. The Effects on Voting.. .696
d. Findings on the Effect of Socioeconomic Conditions on Latino Voting. . .696
F. The Circumstances Surrounding the Change to Pasadena’s City Council Election Map and Plan... 696
1. Recent § 5 Preclearance Objections to Converting to AlALarge Voting in Other Texas Municipalities... 697
2. The Shelby County Decision... 698
3. The Shift from a Special Election to Approve' a Council Bond Proposal to Amending the City Charter... 698
4. Council Consideration of the Charter Amendment.. .700
5. The Campaign to Enact the Charter Amendment to Change to a Six Single-Member, Two At-Large District Map and Plan for City Council Elections ...701
a. Improper Use of City Resources to Mobilize Anglo Voters in South Pasadena.. .701
b. The Use of Race and Party as Proxies for Each Other... 703
c. The Result.. .704
6. Council Approval of the 6-2 Map and Plan.. .704
G. The Impact of Pasadena’s New Election Map and Plan.. .706
1. The Previous 8-0 Map and Plan...706
2. The 2015 Election under the Current 6-2 Map and Plan... 707
H. Summary on Findings of Fact.. .708
III. Conclusions of Law on § 2 of the Voting Rights Act.. .709
A. Cingles Step One... 709
I. The First Two Conditions: The Minority . is Sufficiently Numerous and Geographically Compact.. .709
2. The Third Condition: The Majority Votes as Bloc Sufficiently to Defeat the Minority’s Preferences... 709
B. Gingles Step Two... 713
*673 1. History of Discrimination... 713
2. Racially Polarized Voting and Dilu-tive Measures.. .714
3. Racial Appeals in Political Campaigns ...714
4. Successful Elections of Minority Candidates... 715
5 Officials’ Responsiveness to Minority Concerns... 715
6. Tenuousness of the Policy.. .717
7. Proportionality.. .717
8. Conclusion of Law on the Totality of the Circumstances... 718
C. Findings and Conclusions on Intentional Discrimination... 718
1. Guidance from the Fifth Circuit: Veasey v. Abbott.. .719
2.. The Arlington HeightsY&t- tors...721
a. The Historical Background of the Decision.. .721
b. The Sequence of Events Leading Up to the Decision; Legislative History. . .721
c. Departures, Both from the Normal Procedural Sequence and Substantive; Legislative History and Preenactment Statements by Proponents. . .723
d. Meeting the Burdens: The Plaintiffs’ Showing that Racial Discrimination was a Substantial Factor in Enacting the New Electoral Map and the Defendants’ Failure to Demonstrate that the Law Would Have Been Enacted Without this Factor.. .724
3. Conclusion: The City Intended to Dilute Latino Voting Strength... 728
IV. Remedy... 728
V. Conclusion and Order.. .730
Appendix A: Demonstrative Maps... 731
Appendix B: Time Line... 732
Introduction
This suit is one of many filed over the years to protect minority voting rights by ensuring “equal opportunity to participate in the political process.” Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 44 , 106 S.Ct. 2752 , 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986) (internal quotation and citation omitted). This suit is one of the first involving redistricting done shortly after, and because, the Supreme Court decided Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2612, 2631 , 186 L.Ed.2d 651 (2013), which removed the federal Department of Justice preclearance requirement under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The plaintiffs are Latinos in Pasadena, Texas who are citizens of voting age. They ask this court to find that Pasadena’s 2014 change from eight single-member- districts for electing City Council members to six single-member districts and two at-large districts dilutes Latino voting strength and violates § 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs ask this court for a declaratory judgment finding Latino vote dilution, an injunction against using the mixed single-member and at-large map and plan, an order that the 2017 City Council elections be held under the eight single-member map and plan in place in 2013, and an order that Pasadena submit to preclearance by the Department of Justice before making future changes to its voting map or plan for electing City Council members.
The defendant, the City of Pasadena, opposes the requests. The City asserts that in recommending the redistricting, Pasadena’s Mayor and City Council intended to promote two legitimate goals unrelated to Latino vote dilution: first, the nonpartisan goal of making the Council more broadly representative and responsive to the concerns of all Pasadena resi *674 dents; and second, the partisan goal of enhancing Republican, rather than Anglo, votes. The City argues that the change from a single-member to a mixed map and plan did not cause the Latino-vote dilution necessary to find a § 2 violation; and, if dilution resulted, that the City lacked the intent necessary to find a constitutional violation.
This suit has received the careful court review the subject matter commands. After discovery and rulings on motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, the court held a seven-day bench trial, at which 16 witnesses testified and the court admitted 468 exhibits into evidence. The parties presented closing arguments at a three-hour hearing on December 2, 2016. After carefully considering the pleadings, the evidence, the arguments of counsel, and the law that applies, the court issues this Memorandum and Opinion setting out its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a). 1
For the reasons stated in detail below, the court finds and concludes that Pasadena’s 2014 change from an eight single-member district map and plan to a six single-member district and two at-large position map and plan for electing its City Council dilutes the votes of its Latino citizens, in violation of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The court also finds and concludes that the change to the mixed map and plan was intended to dilute those votes because they were cast by Latino voters, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pasadena is enjoined from using the 2014 mixed map and plan in the 2017 City Council elections or subsequent elections. Instead, Pasadena must conduct the 2017 City Council election using the eight single-member district map it used in the May 2013 City Council elections. Pasadena must also submit to federal Department of Justice preclearance before implementing future redistricting changes.
The reasons for these rulings are explained in detail below.
I. The Law Governing the Court’s Inquiry, Findings, and Conclusions
Although great progress has been made, “voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that,” and § 2 of the Voting Rights Act remains a crucial “permanent, nationwide ban,” Shelby County, 133 S.Ct. at 2619 , on “even the most subtle forms of discrimination,” Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380, 406 , 111 S.Ct. 2354 , 115 L.Ed.2d 348 (1991) (Sealia, J., dissenting). Federal courts have a vital role in protecting the right “to participate equally in the political process.” Gingles, 478 U.S. at 80 , 106 S.Ct. 2752 . In requiring federal courts to consider “the totality of circumstances,” 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (b), Congress has made clear that, again in the Court’s words, “whether the political processes are equally open depends upon a searching practical evaluation of the past and present reality and on a functional view of the political process.” Gingles, 478 U.S. at 45 , 106 S.Ct. 2752 (internal quotations and citation omitted). At the same time, federal courts are reluctant to interfere with legislative decisions, especially when they are decisions *675 by state or local legislative bodies, and when the decisions concern issues as sensitive as those regarding who votes, how they vote, and what districts they vote in. See Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535, 540 , 98 S.Ct. 2493 , 57 L.Ed.2d 411 (1978).
A. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fifteenth Amendment
Congress passed the Voting Rights Act to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment and prevent “an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by [racial minority and majority] voters to elect their preferred representatives.” Gingles, 478 U.S. at 47 , 106 S.Ct. 2752 . Although the Supreme Court held in 1980 that a § 2 plaintiff had to prove discriminatory intent, City of Mobile, Alabama v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 , 100 S.Ct. 1519 , 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980), Congress amended the Voting Rights Act in 1982 so that a § 2 plaintiff need only show that a particular voting practice produces a discriminatory result. 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (a)); See Gingles, 478 U.S. at 35 , 106 S.Ct. 2752 (“Congress substantially revised § 2 to make clear that a violation could be proved by showing discriminatory effect alone and to establish as the relevant legal standard the ‘results test,’ applied by this Court in [White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 , 93 S.Ct. 2332 , 37 L.Ed.2d 314 (1973) ], and by other federal courts before Bolden.”). The 1982 amendment created a “results-based” test to analyze vote-dilution claims. S. Rep. No. 97-417, at 40 (1982), reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 218 (“S. Rep”).
In Gingles , the Supreme Court established a two-step analysis for vote-dilution claims. 478 U.S. at 50-51 , 106 S.Ct. 2752 . The minority group must first demonstrate: (1) “that it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district;” (2) “that it is politically cohesive;” and (3) “that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it—in the absence of special circumstances...—usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.” Id. The court’s task is then to consider the “totality of the circumstances and to determine, based upon a searching practical evaluation of the past and present reality whether the political process is equally open to minority voters.” Id. at 79 , 106 S.Ct. 2752 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
That analysis is informed by the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Report accompanying the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act, which sets out a nonexhaustive list of factors bearing on whether the challenged practice impermissibly impairs a minority group’s ability to elect their preferred representatives. These factors include:
(1) the extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political subdivision that touched the right of the members of a minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise to participate in the democratic process;
(2) the extent to which voting in the elections of the state or political subdivision is racially polarized;
(3) the extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, anti-single shot provisions, or other voting practices or procedures that may enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group;
(4) if there is a candidate slating process, whether the members of the minority group have been denied access to that process;
(5) the extent to which members of the minority group in the state or political subdivision bear the effects of *676 discrimination in such areas as education, employment and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process;
(6) whether political campaigns have been characterized by overt or subtle racial appeals;
(7) the extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction.
S. Rep. at 28-29.
Additional factors are “whether there is a significant lack of responsiveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs” of the minority group and “whether the policy underlying the ... use of such voting qualification, prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice or procedure is tenuous.” S. Rep. at 29. A court must also consider whether the number of “majority-minority districts,” that is, districts in which a racial minority in a jurisdiction makes up the majority population of a district within that jurisdiction, “[is] in substantial proportion to the minority’s share of voting-age population.” Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1013 , 114 S.Ct. 2647 , 129 L.Ed.2d 775 (1994).
There is no requirement that every factor be met, that “any particular number of factors be proved, or that a majority of them point one way or the other.” S. Rep. at 29. “The courts ordinarily have not used these factors ... as a mechanical ‘point counting’ device .... Rather, the provision requires the court’s overall judgment, based on the totality of circumstances and guided by those relevant factors in the particular case, of whether the voting strength of minority voters is ... ‘minimized or canceled out.’ ” Id. at 29 n.118.
The totality-of-the-circumstances analysis is “local in nature.” League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224, 243 (4th Cir. 2014). A court must determine “upon a searching practical evaluation of the past and present reality whether the political process is equally open to minority voters.” Gingles, 478 U.S. at 79 , 106 S.Ct. 2752 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “This determination is peculiarly dependent upon the facts of each case, and requires an intensely local appraisal of the design and impact of the contested electoral mechanisms.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). The factual finding of vote denial or abridgement rests on the court’s “particular familiarity with the indigenous political reality....” Id.
B. The Fourteenth Amendment
“In decision after decision, [the Supreme] Court has made clear that a citizen has a constitutionally protected right to participate in elections on an equal basis with other citizens, in the jurisdiction.” Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 336 , 92 S.Ct. 995 , 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972) (collecting cases). “[A] vote dilution claim alleges that the [City] has enacted a particular voting scheme as a purposeful device to minimize or cancel out the voting potential of racial or ethnic minorities, an action disadvantaging voters of a particular race” in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 911 , 115 S.Ct. 2475 , 132 L.Ed.2d 762 (1995) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). At-large, “multimember districts violate the Fourteenth Amendment if ‘conceived or operated as purposeful devices to further racial discrimination’ by minimizing, cancelling out or diluting the voting strength of racial elements in the voting population.” Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S. 613, 617 , 102 S.Ct. 3272 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1982) (quoting Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124, 149 , 91 S.Ct. 1858 , 29 L.Ed.2d 363 (1971)). Fourteenth Amendment “[c]ases charging that multimember districts unconstitutionally dilute the voting strength of racial minorities are thus *677 subject to the standard of proof generally applicable to Equal Protection Clause cases.” Id. (citing Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 , 97 S.Ct. 555 , 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977); Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 , 96 S.Ct. 2040 , 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976)). “Proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.” Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 265 , 97 S.Ct. 555 . But “[rjacial discrimination need only be one purpose, and not even a primary purpose,” of an official action for a violation to occur. United States v. Brown, 561 F.3d 420, 433 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). A court must make a “sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence of intent as may be available.” Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266 , 97 S.Ct. 555 .
In Arlington Heights , the Supreme Court set out five factors to determine whether a decision affecting minority voting strength was made with a discriminatory purpose. The list is not exhaustive. “Those factors include: (1) the historical background of the decision, (2) the specific sequence of events leading up to the decision, (3) departures from the normal procedural sequence, (4) substantive departures, and (5) legislative history, especially where there are contemporary statements by members of the decision-making body.” Overton v. City of Austin, 871 F.2d 529, 540 (5th Cir. 1989) (citing Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 267-68 , 97 S.Ct. 555 ). “Legislators’ awareness of a disparate impact on a protected group is not enough: the law must be passed because of that disparate impact.” Veasey v. Abbott, 830 F.3d 216, 231 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (citing Pers. Adm’r of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 279 , 99 S.Ct. 2282 , 60 L.Ed.2d 870 (1979)). The challengers bear the burden to show that racial discrimination was a “‘substantial’ or ‘motivating’ factor behind enactment of the law”; if they meet that burden, “the burden shifts to the law’s defenders to demonstrate that the law would have been enacted without this factor.” Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222, 228 , 105 S.Ct. 1916 , 85 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985) (citation omitted).
II. Findings of Fact
A. Procedural Background
After extensive discovery, the City moved for summary judgment in July 2016. (Docket Entry No. 71). The court denied the motion because the plaintiffs satisfied the first step of showing undisputed facts in the record that, as a matter of law, could prove minority vote dilution under Thornburg v. Gringles, 478 U.S. at 47 , 106 S.Ct. 2752 . (Docket Entry No. 87). The court held a seven-day bench trial and heard five expert witnesses and eleven other witnesses testify. The court admitted hundreds of pages of documents, including maps showing before-and after-redistricting lines. (Docket Entry Nos. 109-114, 116).
In response to the plaintiffs’ argument that the evidence proves both Latino vote dilution and the intent to achieve this result, the City argues that using at-large districts is a legitimate government objective and that the change to the mixed single-member and at-large map and plan does not as a matter of fact or law dilute Latino voting power in Pasadena. (Docket Entry No. 148). The City argues that because there is no vote dilution, there cannot be intentional discrimination, or, alternatively, that the evidence does not show that Pasadena officials acted with racially discriminatory intent. (Id.). Instead, the City argues that at most, Pasadena officials intended to dilute Democratic votes or depress Democratic turnout in a partisan move to bolster Republican support in Pasadena. The City insists that the evidence of intentional partisan discrimination *678 is not evidence of intentional racial discrimination.
The court considers both sides’ arguments based on the large record; the applicable law; counsels’ arguments presented at lengthy hearings on the summary judgment motions and at the conclusion of trial on December 2, 2016; and the trial testimony and documents.
B. The Record Evidence
The parties submitted 468 exhibits into evidence; 16 witnesses testified, and many more were deposed before trial. The parties agree that two maps, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 152-1 and 252-1, accurately represent the change in Pasadena’s voting map and plan from eight single-member districts (the 8-0 map and plan) to six single-member districts and two at-large places (the 6-2 map and plan). Those maps are reproduced in Appendix A. The parties rely on the same sources for Pasadena’s demographic data and, with the exception of the current number for the citizen voting-age Latino population of Pasadena, they arrive at the same population figures, with the inevitable minor variances. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶ 19). The parties agree on the basic chronology of the change to the 6-2 map and plan. The parties sharply disagree about the legal significance of the facts, events, and statements the record establishes. The court reviews the factual record in light of the appropriate legal framework to resolve the disagreements.
1. Fact Witnesses
The fact witnesses testified about elections in Pasadena and the events leading up to and following the change to the 6-2 voting map and plan. The witnesses and their testimony are briefly summarized below.
• Mayor Johnny Isbell. Mayor Isbell has been involved in Pasadena polities for thirty-four years, serving a number of terms as a City Council member. He was elected mayor in 2009 and reelected in 2013 for another four-year term. Mayor Isbell is approaching his term limit and cannot run again for mayor in 2017. Mayor Isbell proposed the change to the 6-2 map and plan for electing City Council members. In the summer of 2013, Mayor Isbell commissioned the law firm of Bickerstaff, Heath, Delgado and Acosta, LLP to prepare and review three redistricting maps that mixed single-member districts with seats elected at-large. Def. Exs. 13-14; Bench Trial Tr. 3:19.
• Council member Ornaldo Ybarra. Mr. Ybarra was born and raised in Pasadena and attended college there. He is currently a sergeant in the Pearland Police Department. Other than his four years of military service, Mr. Ybarra has lived in the same Pasadena district he now represents on the Council. In 2009, Mr. Ybarra became the first Latino in nearly two decades elected to the City Council. He has been reelected in both the old and the new District A. He, too, is at the end of his term and cannot run again for District A’s City Council seat in 2017. As a Council member, Mr. Ybarra consistently voted against the Mayor’s positions on resource-allocation issues that divided the Council. These divisive issues typically involved deciding what resources would go to predominately Latino, older, and less prosperous North Pasadena and what resources would go to the predominately Anglo, newer, and wealthier South Pasadena. Mr. Ybarra consistently voted to send more resources to the north side, where the infrastructure is in worse shape and the amenities are significantly fewer, than on the south side. When these resource-allocation issues divided the Council, the Mayor and his allies would generally cast votes that Mr. Ybarra opposed. *679 Mr. Ybarra also voted against the May- or’s proposal to change to the 6-2 map and plan for City Council elections.
• Council member Pat Van Houte. Ms. Van Houte moved to Pasadena in 1980 and worked for the Texas Workforce Commission investigating unemployment claims. In 2009, Ms. Van Houte was elected to represent District D under the 8-0 single-member district map and plan. She has been continuously reelected to the City Council. Most recently, in 2015, she was elected to represent the new at-large Place G. Ms. Van Houte is not Latino but was the Latino-preferred candidate in the 2015 at-large election in which she defeated another Anglo candidate by 143 votes. As a Council member, Ms. Van Houte consistently voted against the Mayor’s positions on resource-allocation issues. She also voted against the Mayor’s proposal to change to the 6-2 map and plan for City Council elections.
• Council member Cody Ray Wheeler. Mr. Wheeler attended elementary school in Pasadena and returned to the City during college after four years in the Marine Corps. He teaches kindergarten in the Aldine Independent School District. In 2013, Mr. Wheeler was elected to represent District E under the 8-0 single-member district map and plan. In 2015, he was reelected to represent the new District D under the 6-2 map and plan, a district with substantially similar boundaries as the former District E. Mr. Wheeler’s mother is Latino and his father is half-Latino. Mr. Wheeler identifies as Latino. Bench Trial Tr. 5:96. As a Council member, Mr. Wheeler consistently voted against the Mayor’s positions on resource-allocation issues. He also voted against the Mayor’s proposal to change to the 6-2 map and plan for City Council elections.
• Former Council member Don Harrison. Mr. Harrison moved to Pasadena when he was eleven years old and has lived there continuously for nearly sixty-five years. Before retiring, Mr. Harrison was an appraiser for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Harrison has served on the City Council for approximately nineteen years. His most recent continuous term ran from 2007 to 2015. During that time, Mr. Harrison represented District C under the 8-0 single-member district map and plan. As a Council member, Mr. Harrison consistently voted against the Mayor’s positions on resource-allocation issues. He also voted against the Mayor’s proposal to change to the 6-2 map and plan for City Council elections.
• Council member Cary Bass. Mr. Bass is a Pasadena businessman who has contracts with the City. He is a political ally of, and has received civic board appointments from, Mayor Isbell. In 2015, Mr. Bass was elected to represent the new District E under the 6-2 map and plan. Mr. Bass’s 2015 campaign received financial support from Mayor Isbell’s political action committee, Citizens to Keep Pasadena Strong. Bench Trial Tr. 5:7-9, 5:13-14; Pls. Ex. 154. Mr. Bass has consistently voted with the Mayor and his allies on resource-allocation issues when they divided City Council.
• Council candidate Oscar Del Toro. Mr. Del Toro is a Pasadéna businessman who ran for the new at-large Place H in 2015. Mr. Del Toro, a Latino and the Latino-preferred candidate, lost the election to an Anglo opponent. He received 39.1% of the citywide vote. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶ 64). Before running for City Council, Mr. Del Toro was an ambassador for the Pasadena Chamber of Commerce and worked on greeting new businesses established in *680 the City. He volunteered with the local school district, belonged to several local political organizations, and had worked on several local political campaigns in Pasadena.
• Director of Community Relations Richard Scott. Mr. Scott is a lifelong Pasadena resident, except for his Army service. Before retiring, he worked for Western Waste Industries. Mr. Scott is a longtime friend of Mayor Isbell, who appointed Mr. Scott as the City’s Director of Community Relations when Mayor Isbell returned to office in 2008. . Mr. Scott supervises five managers who control the City’s public outreach.
• Director of Financial Planning Andy Helms. Mr. Helms has been a Pasadena resident for nearly thirty years. He has held a number of City offices, including director of traffic, purchasing director, planning director, assistant to the mayor for public works, and associate municipal judge. He is currently Pasadena’s Director of Financial Planning. Mr. Helms is Mayor Isbell’s chief . advisor and a personal friend and has worked on Mayor Isbell’s political campaigns for many years. Bench Trial Tr. 5:23-25.
• Bianca Gracia. Ms. Gracia has resided in Pasadena for twelve years. She is the president of the Village Grove East Homeowner’s Association in South Pasadena.
• Victor Villarreal. Mr. Villarreal is a businessman who has lived in Pasadena for fourteen years. He has served as a board member for several nonprofit organizations in Pasadena and is a former president of the City’s Hispanic Business Association. In 2013, Council member Ybarra recommended, and Mayor Isbell appointed, Mr. Villarreal to a citizens’ committee to review bond proposals. Shortly after the Bond-Review Committee was put in place, the Mayor changed it to a committee to consider amending Pasadena’s Charter provisions on City Council elections to the 6-2 voting map and plan.
2. Expert Witnesses
The plaintiffs presented Mr. David Ely to testify under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence on his specialized field of demography. Mr. Ely holds degrees in engineering and social science from the California Institute of Technology. He owns and is president of Compass Demographics, a consulting firm that builds specialized data sets using the United States decennial census and other sources.
The plaintiffs also presented Dr. Richard Engstrom to testify under Rule 702. His field is statistics, and he testified on applying statistical analysis to issues raised by election redistricting. Dr. Eng-strom has a doctorate in political science and is on the graduate faculty in political science at Duke University. Dr. Engstrom served as an advisor for the Mississippi legislature on gaining United States Department of Justice preclearance for state redistricting plans before the Supreme Court held in Shelby County that § 5 of the Voting Rights Act no longer required it. He has testified regularly and published many articles and scholarly works on redistricting and the Voting Rights Act.
Finally, the plaintiffs offered the Rule 702 testimony of Dr. Andres Tijerina, whose field is Texas history and the historical experience of Latinos in Texas. Dr. Tijerina holds a doctorate in American history and is a professor of history at Austin Community College. Dr. Tijerina has published award-winning work on Latino and Tejano history.
The City offered the Rule 702 testimony of Dr. John Alford, whose work applies statistical analysis to issues raised by election districting. Dr. Alford holds a doctor *681 ate in political science and a master’s degree in public administration. He is on the Rice University political science faculty. He has appeared as an expert witness in many federal court proceedings involving the Voting Rights Act and has frequently published in his field.
The City also offered the testimony of Dr. Bill Rives as an expert in demography. Dr. Rives holds a Ph.D. in economics with a concentration in demography and is a senior lecturer in the Fisher College of Business at the Ohio State University. He has held postdoctoral research fellowships in demography, economics, and statistics at the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University and the Census Bureau’s Office of Population Research.
The court finds that Drs. Engstrom and Alford meet the Rule 702 requirements to testify in applying statistical analysis to issues raised by election districting; that Mr. Ely and Dr. Rives are qualified to testify on demography; and that Dr. Tijerina is qualified to testify on Texas history and the historical experience of Latinos in Texas.
C. Pasadena’s Election Maps and Plans
Pasadena is a Texas home rule city. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶ 2). The City Charter, in place since 1942, sets up a “mayor-council government” with a strong mayor. (Id. ¶ 3). Pasadena’s powers are vested in an elected Council made up of the Mayor and, since 1992, eight Council members. The City Charter empowers the Council to enact legislation, adopt budgets, and determine City policies. The Charter empowers the Mayor to recommend ordinances for the Council’s consideration and to vote on matters before the Council. (Id.). Pasadena holds nonpartisan elections to elect the Mayor and the eight City Council members, with a majority vote required for election. (Id. ¶ 7).
The City Charter adopted in 1964 provided for a Mayor and six-member Council, all elected at-large. Four Council members had to live in designated districts. (Id. ¶ 4); Bench Trial Tr. 3:55. In 1992, Pasadena amended its Charter to enlarge the City Council from six to eight members and to elect all eight from single-member districts. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶ 5); Bench Trial Tr. 3:56. From 1992 to 2013, Pasadena used an eight single-member district map and plan to elect Council members and elected its Mayor at-large. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶¶ 5, 6).
In 2011, Pasadena’s City Council voted in favor of adopting a redistricting map that produced four majority Spanish-sur-named registered-voter districts and four majority Anglo registered-voter districts. The City held one City Council election under that map and plan in May 2013. On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, 133 S.Ct. at 2612 , holding that § 5 preclearance under the Voting Rights Act was no longer required in many states, including Texas.
On June 27, two days later, Mayor Isbell sent the City Council a memo calling for a committee to consider bond proposals for a November 2013 special election. During the Committee’s deliberations, Mayor Is-bell recommended amending the City Charter to create at-large voting districts and proposed maps that created a 4-2 map and plan, a 7-1 map and plan, and a 6-2 map and plan. Bench Trial Tr. 3:6-7; Pls. Ex. 246. He turned the Bond Review Committee into a committee to consider redistricting. The Committee recommended against amending the City Charter to create the mixed single-member and at-large election districts. Pls. Ex. 21. Mayor Isbell nevertheless proposed the Charter amendment to the City Council in August 2013. With the Mayor’s tie-breaking vote in fa *682 vor, the Charter amendment proposal was put on the November 2013 special-election ballot. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶¶ 48, 50). On November 5, 2013, Pasadena voters cast 3,292 votes to approve Proposition 1, changing the districts to elect City Council members to six single-member and two at-large districts. (Id. ¶ 51). The vote was very close; 3,213 voted against it. (Id.). Latinos opposed the proposal with an estimated 99.6% of their votes. (Id. ¶ 63).
In April 2014, the City Council passed the ordinance adopting the redistricting proposal that moved to a 6-2 map and plan. During the debate on the proposed redistricting, Council member Van Houte, elected as a Latino-preferred candidate, spoke against it. The Mayor ordered police officers to escort her out of the meeting when she exceeded a recently enacted rule limiting speech on a single topic to three minutes. (Id. ¶ 54). Pasadena’s City Council approved the Charter amendment by a 5-4 vote, with Mayor Isbell breaking the tie in favor of the change. (Id. ¶¶ 54-55). For the 2015 election, the 6-2 map and plan produced one less Latino-majority single-member district than under the 8-0 single-member district map and plan. (Id. ¶ 56).
The two at-large positions on the City Council are elected by numbered place. Under a place system, seats are contested separately. Candidates for an at-large position on the Council file for only one place and compete only with the other candidates filing for that same place. Each voter may cast only one vote between the candidates for each place. (Id. ¶ 13).
At-large voting using numbered places precludes a single-shot voting strategy. (Id. ¶ 14); Bench Trial Tr. 1:111. With single-shot voting, group members can cast one vote for the candidate the group favors and not cast any of their remaining votes for another candidate. By withholding their remaining votes from the candidates competing with their preferred choice, minority voters have a better chance of seeing their preferred representative finish among the top candidates and win one of the seats. Id. at 1:111-12; Pls. Ex. 198 at 4. The loss of single-shot voting disadvantages minority voters because their preferred candidates who finish in second place are eliminated. Bench Trial Tr. 1:111-12.
The Pasadena election plan uses a majority-vote requirement for each City Council seat. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶¶ 7, 12). A successful candidate must win a majority of the votes cast in citywide elections. If no candidate receives a majority, a runoff election is held between the top two vote recipients. A majority-vote requirement also disadvantages minority voters by forcing their preferred candidate into a head-to-head contest with only one other candidate and eliminating the chance for a plurality victory if multiple candidates in the majority group divide the vote. Bench Trial Tr. 1:112; Pls. Ex. 198 at 4.
D. Pasadena’s History
Pasadena has a long history of discrimination against minorities, including Latinos, as well as a history of more recent events that are more probative. This history is “one evidentiary source, particularly if it reveals a series of official actions taken for invidious purposes,” Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 267 , 97 S.Ct. 555 , but as the Fifth Circuit recently recognized in Veasey , “unless historical evidence is reasonably contemporaneous with the challenged decision, it has little probative value.” Veasey, 830 F.3d at 232 (quoting McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 , 298 n.20, 107 S.Ct. 1756 , 95 L.Ed.2d 262 (1987)).
1. Texas Laws Affecting Pasadena
“Texas has a long, well-documented history of discrimination that has touched *683 upon the rights of African-Americans and Hispanics to register, to vote, or to participate otherwise in the electoral process. Devices such as the poll tax, an all-white primary system, and restrictive voter registration time periods are an unfortunate part of this State’s minority voting rights history. The history of official discrimination in the Texas election process— stretching back to Reconstruction—led to the inclusion of the State as a covered jurisdiction under Section 5 in the 1975 amendments to the Voting Rights Act.” League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 439-40 , 126 S.Ct. 2594 , 165 L.Ed.2d 609 (2006) (LULAC) (quoting Vera v. Richards, 861 F.Supp. 1304, 1317 (S.D. Tex. 1994)). The political, social, and economic legacy of past discrimination for Latinos in Texas also hinders their current ability to participate effectively in the political process. Id.
The 1903 Terrell Election Law imposed a poll tax in Texas. The Act’s sponsor explained that the law was intended to close “the flood gates for illegal voting as one person could buy up the Mexican and Negro votes.” Pls. Ex. 201 at 12. The poll tax was eliminated in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 , 86 S.Ct. 1079 , 16 L.Ed.2d 169 (1966). In response, the first Senate bill of the first 1966 Texas legislative session required voters to register annually. The annual registration requirement was invalidated in 1971. Beare v. Smith, 321 F.Supp. 1100, 1108 (S.D. Tex. 1971), aff'd sub nom. Beare v. Briscoe, 498 F.2d 244 (5th Cir. 1974).
The Texas State Democratic Executive Committee established a White Man’s Primary Association in 1904, requiring an oath declaring “I am a white person and a Democrat” for membership. Pls. Ex. 201 at 12. In Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 , 47 S.Ct. 446 , 71 L.Ed. 759 (1927), the Supreme Court struck down the Texas white primary law under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Texas Legislature then passed a law authorizing political parties to set their own voter qualifications, and the Democratic Party enacted a rule that only whites could vote in the primary. The Supreme Court struck down this law in 1932. Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73 , 52 S.Ct. 484 , 76 L.Ed. 984 (1932).
Texas enacted a law in 1918 to eliminate interpreters at the polls. Act of March 23, 1918, 35th Leg., 4th C.S. Ch. 30 (H.B. 104); Pls. Ex. 201 at 12. The following year, Texas enacted a requirement that election officials could communicate only in English in the polling place. Act of March 13, 1919, 36th Leg. Ch. 55 (S.B. 244), 1919 Tex. Gen. Laws p. 94. In 1975, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary report accompanying H.R. 6219 referred to “overwhelming evidence of voting discrimination against language minorities” and stated that “it is not surprising that the registration and voting statistics of language minorities are significantly below those of the Anglo majority. In 1972, for example, only 44.4 percent of persons of Spanish origin were registered compared to 73.4 percent for Anglos.” S. Rep. No. 94-295, at 30 (1975), reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 774, 797. The 1974 percentages indicated similar disparity of 34.9 percent for Mexican-Americans to 63.5 percent registered Anglos. The Mexican-Ameriean voting rate was half of the voting rate for Anglos in 1974. See id.
In 1972, a federal district court explained that a “cultural and language impediment, conjoined with the poll tax and the most restrictive voter registration procedures in the nation have operated to effectively deny Mexican-Americans access to the political processes in Texas even longer than the Blacks were formally denied access by the white primary.” Graves v. Barnes, 343 F.Supp. 704, 731 (W.D. Tex.), aff'd sub nom. Archer v. *684 Smith, 409 U.S. 808 , 93 S.Ct. 62 , 34 L.Ed.2d 68 (1972), and aff'd in part, rev’d in part sub nom. White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 , 93 S.Ct. 2332 , 37 L.Ed.2d 314 (1973). As set out in greater detail below, it is only in recent years, as Pasadena’s Latino population has swelled, that Latinos have attained a meaningful political voice.
In 2012, a three-judge panel of the federal district court for the Western District of Texas ordered the creation of a Latino-majority congressional district in Harris County that includes the portion of Pasadena north of Spencer Highway. Perez v. Perry, Civil No. 11-360, Docket Entry No. 682 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2012). The court ordered this interim remedy after finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on a § 2 vote-dilution claim. The court found that the State’s redistricting reduced the Latino citizen voting-age population in the district in order to “mak[e] the district safer for its Republican incumbent,” violating § 2. Id., Docket Entry No. 690 at 8.
2. Racially Discriminatory Ordinances and Official Activities in Pasadena
Dr. Tijerina credibly testified about the history of Pasadena’s treatment of its Latino residents. Dr. Tijerina documented the use of restrictive covenants and exclusionary laws and practices targeting Latinos in. housing, education, City ordinances, and the workplace. Pls. Ex. 201.
When Pasadena was incorporated in 1942, its City Charter complied with a Texas law imposing segregation and outlawing Spanish-language instruction, as well as Bohemian and German. The 1942 City Charter incorporated segregation in Article VIII, Section 4, titled “Segregation of Races.” Pls. Ex. 201 at 30. Restrictive housing covenants were in place until the 1940s. Bench Trial Tr. 1:174-76; Pls. Ex. 203. The pattern of housing segregation, now de facto, remains. Most Latino residents live in North Pasadena, which is separated from the predominately Anglo South Pasadena by the Spencer Highway. South Pasadena’s streets, sewage, recreation areas, and other basic infrastructure elements and amenities are much better than North Pasadena’s. 2
As late as 1980, the Pasadena Independent School District excluded undocumented immigrant students. Pls. Ex. 201 at 30-31; see In re Alien Children Ed. Litig., 501 F.Supp. 544 , 550 n.6 (S.D. Tex. 1980). In 1987, the federal government successfully sued the School District for failing to hire African-American teachers and administrators. Pls. Ex. 201 at 30; see also United States v. Pasadena Indep. Sch. Dist., Civil No. 83-5107, 1987 WL 9919 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 1987).
Pasadena was the Texas headquarters of the Ku Klux Klan. Pls. Ex. 201 at 29. The Klan targeted Mexican-Americans, including by burning crosses, publicly carrying high-powered rifles, and maintaining a public presence. Bench Trial Tr. 1:184. Former Council member Don Harrison recalls seeing Klan members outside their headquarters building, which was located on a major thoroughfare. Id. at 4:173-74 . In the late 1980’s, Council member Van Houte recalls seeing Klan members outside the building lining the street and wearing their white robes. Id. at 4:6-7 .
In the mid-1980s, Latino ad hoc committees met with the Pasadena Police Chief and City Council to protest police brutality and harassment. Pls. Ex. 201 at 31. In 1986, the Federal Bureau of Investigation came to Pasadena to investigate the alleged beating of a Latino man in police custody. Id. In the 1990s, there were continuing incidents of police mistreatment of Latinos and complaints about a close rela *685 tionship between the Pasadena Police Department and the Ku Klux Klan. Id.
Complaints of police antipathy toward Latino residents have continued to the present. In the past several years, Latino residents in North Pasadena have repeatedly complained to Council members that they are more likely to be targeted for traffic stops by police than Anglo residents. Bench Trial Tr. 2:14, 4:7. Former Council member Harrison recalled a 2008 conversation he had with Mayor Isbell, in which the Mayor said that he had told the Pasadena police department that if officers found a Hispanic driving without car insurance, the officers should impound the car. Id. at 4:199-200 . When Mr. Harrison asked the Mayor what the police were to do if an Anglo was driving without insurance, the Mayor responded that impoundment should be left to the officer’s discretion. Id. Mr. Harrison credibly testified that he understood this as a racially biased comment. Id.
Witnesses testified to continuing racially tinged incidents. Council member Ybarra testified that approximately three years ago, an Anglo City human resources employee made comments to a group of Latino employees in the City Water Department about “Mexicans making tacos.” Id. at 2:185-86 . When the Water Department employees complained to Mr. Ybarra, the employee was transferred but continued to work for the City. Id. Mr. Ybarra credibly testified that he has witnessed instances of official racist attitudes and acts during his City Council service. “I have been in Pasadena for 38 years. The whole time I have been there, I never experienced racism or prejudice to what I have seen in my time serving on council.” Id. at 2:185 .
3. Recent Private Racial Discrimination in Pasadena
Private acts of discrimination are less probative of discriminatory effects or intentions than official acts. See Veasey, 830 F.3d at 306 (Jones, J., dissenting) (citing Frank v. Walker, 768 F.3d 744, 755 (7th Cir. 2014) (Easterbrook, J.)). But “under the results standard of section 2, pervasive private discrimination should be considered, because such discrimination can contribute to the inability of [minorities] to assert their political influence and to participate equally in public life.” United States v. Marengo Cty. Comm’n, 731 F.2d 1546 , 1567 n.36 (11th Cir. 1984) (Wisdom, J.); see also Gomez v. City of Watsonville, 863 F.2d 1407, 1418 (9th Cir. 1988) (rejecting the argument that only discrimination by the defendant is relevant to a § 2 vote-dilution case); Solomon v. Liberty Cty., Florida, 899 F.2d 1012, 1032 (11th Cir. 1990) (en banc) (Tjoflat, J., concurring) (“Congress ... revised [§ 2] to prohibit election practices that accommodate or amplify the effect that private discrimination has in. the voting process.” (quoting David L. Eades, Recent Developments, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act: An Approach to the Results Test, 39 Vand. L. Rev. 139 , 172 (1986))). And in this case, private discrimination in Pasadena is not entirely private. As the City notes, because the City Charter can be amended only by a vote of the citywide electorate, the official, “ultimate decision-maker on the charter amendment is the entire electorate.” (Docket Entry No. 148 ¶ 51).
The court finds that Pasadena’s current Latino Council members and a recent candidate for City Council credibly testified about private discrimination among Pasadena’s electorate, particularly in South Pasadena. On multiple occasions while campaigning in 2009, Anglo residents of Pasadena slammed the door shut on Mr. Ybarra, telling him that they “weren’t going to vote for a wetback” and would not vote for a Hispanic. Bench Trial Tr. 2:24.
As a candidate in 2013 and 2015, Mr. Wheeler did not advertise his Latino eth *686 nicity. Id. at 5:96 . If Mr. Wheeler was talking to an Anglo homeowner who asked about his background, he would answer that he is a little bit of everything but would emphasize his military background and service to the country and to the community to ease their concerns. Id. at 5:97 . Mr. Wheeler credibly testified that it would have been harder for him to be elected in old District E if he had been Spanish-surnamed. “In my first election [in 2013], I won by 32 votes. If my name was something other than Wheeler, if it was Ramirez or Sanchez, I don’t believe that I would have won that election.” Id. at 5:138 . After Mr. Wheeler won the 2013 election in District E, his Anglo opponent, Leroy Stanley, filed an election contest and stated publicly that Mr. Wheeler had won because of “illegal votes.” Id. at 5:114 . Mr. Stanley later dismissed the lawsuit. Mr. Wheeler understood Mr. Stanley’s comments about illegal voting, in conjunction with the fact that “he was going around telling people that I was Mexican, making sure that people knew that,” as a subtle appeal to racism. Id. at 5:152 .
Oscar Del Toro ran for Pasadena City Council’s new at-large Place H in 2015 against an Anglo opponent. Mr. Del Toro focused his door-to-door campaign on South Pasadena. Id. at 5:173-75 . In North Pasadena, residents received him well and were proud that a Mexican immigrant was running for City Council. Some asked him questions in Spanish. Id. at 5:174-75 . In South Pasadena, he was not well-received. One woman told him, “I’m not going to vote for you. You know why?” She did not explain her remark, but Mr. Del Toro understood it as a racial reference. Id. at 5:175 . Another told him that Pasadena is a “good ole boy town,” and asked him to drop his materials on the porch rather than hand them to her. Id.
Dr. Tijerina concluded that Latinos in Pasadena continue to lag behind politically and economically in the face of persistent racial prejudice and a structure of discrimination. Pls. Ex. 201 at 3-4. This recent background is more probative of the impact of, and intent behind, the 2014 change from an 8-0 single-member to a mixed 6-2 single-member and at-large election map and plan in Pasadena.
E. Pasadena’s Demographics
1. The Latino Population in Pasadena
Pasadena’s population is approximately 149,285 persons. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶¶ 20-21). The parties agree that the Latino citizen voting-age population of the City has risen in recent decades. {Id. ¶ 22). In 1990, the U.S. Census reported that the Hispanic share of Pasadena’s citizen voting-age population was 18.7%. {Id.). The American Community Survey reported that the Hispanic share of Pasadena’s citizen voting-age population was 48.2% for the period 2011-2015. 3 (Docket Entry No. *687 124, Ex. 1). According to the 2010 Census, the City of Pasadena is 62.1% Hispanic, and Pasadena’s Hispanic voting-age population, both citizen and noncitizen, is 55.78%. Pls. Ex. 195; (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶ 29). Pasadena’s Spanish-surnamed voter registration is 41.97% as of September 2016. (Id. ¶ 32). Using Spanish-sur-named voter registration to estimate Latino voter registration reasonably balances errors of omission and commission, particularly in jurisdictions with a significant Latino population. Bench Trial Tr. 1:55-56. Spanish-surnamed voter registration is a reliable proxy for Latino registered voters in Pasadena. Id. Pasadena “geocoded” individual registered voter’s addresses to the Pasadena map. The geocoding was' the basis for determining how many Spanish-surnamed registered voters lived in specific districts. The result is more accurate than estimating Spanish-surnamed voter registration at the block level using data from larger areas like census precincts. Id. at 6:18-19 .
The decennial census does not include a question on citizenship. Id. at 1:65 . Citizenship is requested on the American Community Survey form, an extensive survey the U.S. Census Bureau sends annually to two percent of United States households. Id. at 1:57-58, 65 . As a result, “[t]he sole source of citizenship data published by the Census Bureau now comes from the American Community Survey (ACS’).” Cisneros v. Pasadena Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 4:12-CV-2579, 2014 WL 1668500 , at *5 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2014). 4 The Census Bureau tabulates the American Community Survey results from a five-year period for the Justice Department. Both sides used this information to estimate the citizen voting-age population in Pasadena City Council districts. Bench Trial Tr. 1:65-67. The five-year tabulation of American Community Survey data from 2010-2014 was available to analyze citizenship of the residents in each Pasadena City Council district at the time of trial. Id. at 1:67-68 . The citywide data from 2011-2015 is also now available. 5 (Docket Entry No. 124, Ex. 1).
2. Latino Citizen Voting-Age Population in Pasadena
The Census provides two estimates of the 2015 Hispanic citizen voting-age population in Pasadena. The first is a Hispanic citizen voting-age population of 48.2% and is based on the American Community Survey five-year survey for 2011 to 2015. The second is a Hispanic citizen voting-age population of 50.6% and is based on the American Community Survey one-year survey for 2015.
The five-year survey is the more reliable estimate of citizen voting-age population. The parties agree that the American Community Survey five-year estimate is statistically more reliable than the one-year estimate. The parties also agree that the one-year estimate is more current than the five-year estimate because it is not averaging in data from three or four years ago. Bench Trial Tr. 1:68-69, 6:21-23. The Census Bureau advises that “[e]s-timates for large geographic areas benefit from the increased sample of [multiyear surveys] resulting in more precise estimates of population and housing characteristics, especially for subpopulations within those areas” and that “single-year estimates... have higher sampling varia *688 bility.” A Compass for Understanding and Using American Community Survey Data at A-3 (2009). The margin of error for the five-year data is less than half that of the one-year data. 6 Bench Trial Tr. 1:72. Similar to decennial census estimates of citizen voting-age population, the American Community Survey’s five-year estimate is presumptively correct because it is more statistically reliable. That presumption applies unless different information and numbers are “thoroughly documented, have a high degree of accuracy, and [are] clear, cogent and convincing to override the presumptive correctness of the prior [data].” Valdespino v. Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist., 168 F.3d 848 , 853-54 (5th Cir. 1999). 7 The American Community Survey five-year estimate applies to all years in the five years it covers. Pls. Ex. 319 at A-2.
According to the Census-published guidelines, if the difference between one point estimate and a later point estimate is smaller than the difference between the margins of error for the two estimates, the more recent estimate should not be used to infer a change between the two periods. Id. at A-19; Bench Trial Tr. 1:68-69. A higher one-year point estimate provides some evidence of a change, but not enough for statistical significance. Id. When the difference between the point estimates is smaller than the difference between the margins of error, the balance between statistical reliability and currency tips in favor of using the more reliable figure. 8 Id.
In Pasadena, the American Community Survey five-year estimate of the Hispanic share of-total citizen voting-age population was 48.2% with a margin of error of 1.6%. (Docket Entry No. 124, Ex. 1). The margin of error is based on 90% statistical confidence, which is the Census Bureau standard for American Community Survey margin-of-error estimates. This yields a *689 90% interval estimate running from 46.6% to 49.8%. (See Docket Entry No. 94 ¶ 31). The American Community Survey one-year estimate of the citywide Hispanic share of total citizen voting-age population for 2015 is 50.6%, with a margin of error of approximately 3.3%. The 90% interval estimate for the citywide Hispanic share of total citizen voting-age population runs from 47.3% to 53.9%. (Id.).
Mr. Ely performed the Census Bureau’s recommended procedure to evaluate whether the difference between the American Community Survey one-year and five-year estimates was statistically significant. 9 He determined that the difference between the margins of error was larger than the difference between the point estimates. 10 As a result, the two estimates were not statistically significantly different. For that reason, Mr. Ely concluded that the more statistically reliable five-year estimate is the best source for measuring Pasadena’s Citywide Latino voting-age population. Bench Trial Tr. 1:68-69.
Mr. Ely gave a second reason to rely on the five-year and not the one-year data. Because only the American Community Survey five-year estimate is available for estimating citizen voting-age population in individual Council districts, using the American Community Survey five-year estimate of Citywide citizen voting-age population ensures consistency across the analysis of single-member districts compared to 4t-large voting, avoiding comparing “apples to oranges.” Id. at 1:67-68.
The City did not rebut Mr. Ely’s reasoning for relying on the American Community Survey’s five-year estimate of citizen voting-age population jn Pasadena. The testimony of the City’s expert, Dr. Rives, which endorsed the one-year figure of 50.6% Hispanic citizen voting-age population, was not credible. Dr. Rives testified that he “wasn’t interested” in whether the differences between the one-year and five-year surveys were statistically significant. Bench Trial Tr. 6:72. Dr. Rives presented no margins of error for any of the figures *690 he discussed in his report. Id. at 6:59. In a previous case, Dr. Rives concluded that the effect of Latinos over-reporting their citizenship on surveys likely meant American Community Survey figures for Latino citizen voting-age population were inflated. Dr. Rives testified that he offered those conclusions in the previous case because he was “tasked” to show Latinos had not attained a majority in that case, but in this case “I’m not on the side that’s trying to establish a majority.” Id. at 6:94. The court finds that Dr. Rives’s inconsistent research methods and lack of statistical rigor make his testimony about the reliability of the American Community Survey one-year data not credible.
The court concludes that Latinos make up 48.2% of the citizen voting-age population citywide, and that they likely made up even less of the citizen voting-age citywide population when the 6-2 map and plan was proposed and enacted.
3. The Eight Single-Member District Plan
Under the single-member district map and plan in place in May 2013, when the last City Council election was held, Latinos made up the majority of Pasadena’s citizen voting-age population and the majority of registered voters in four of eight districts: Districts A, B, C, and D. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶¶ 25, 26).
[[Image here]]
Latinos would constitute the majority of the citizen voting-age population and the majority of registered voters in the same four of eight districts in the 8-0 map and plan today. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶ 26); Pls. Ex. 195.
4. The Six Single-Member District and Two At-Large Plan
When the 2015 election was held under Pasadena’s 6-2 map and plan, Latinos made up the majority of the citizen voting-age population and the majority of registered voters in three of six single-member districts: Districts A, B, and C. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶ 29).
*691 [[Image here]]
The 6-2 map eliminated District D as a Latino-majority district and relocated the District D identifier to an Anglo-majority district. Pls. Exs. 152, 153. The 6-2 map, because it divided Pasadena’s population into six instead of eight single-member districts, also enlarged each single-member district by approximately 6,220 people. Pls. Ex. 195-3.
5. Racial Cohesion in Pasadena City Council Eléctions
Dr. Engstrom, the plaintiffs’ expert witness on statistics, used ecological inference to determine the candidate preferences of Latino and non-Latino voters in racially contested elections. He analyzed the racial composition of, and the votes cast in, each of the City Council district elections under the earlier and the current plans. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶ 8); Bench Trial Tr. 1:112— 15
The parties agree that racially contested elections, which present voters with a choice between Latino and non-Latino candidates, are generally more probative for assessing racially-polarized voting than elections in which two Latinos or two Anglos are running against each other. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶ 2). The parties agree that Latino and non-Latino voters demonstrated different preferences in the 2015 at-large race for Place G, the 2015 at-large race for Place H, and the 2013 Proposition 1 race. Bench Trial Tr. 1:128, 6:175; Pls. Ex. 198. Dr. Engstrom also analyzed the three local district elections in May 2015 that were racially contested. Dr. Engstrom testified, and the court finds, that because each district only represents one-sixth of Pasadena’s population, the citywide elections are more probative of raciallypolarized voting in Pasadena. Bench Trial Tr. 1:128-29.
a. The 2015 At-Large Race for Place G
In the May 2015 at-large election for Place G on the Pasadena City Council, former Council member Van Houte, an Anglo candidate, defeated her opponent, Steven Cote, another Anglo Council incumbent, by 143 votes. Pls. Ex. 239. Latino voters supported Ms. Van Houte with an estimated 70.6% of their votes. Def. Ex. 54. Non-Latino voters supported her with 41.6% of their votes. Id. Because that race for Place G involved only Anglo candidates, the racial polarization in that election is less clear than an election between an Anglo and a Latino candidate, but it has some probative value because Ms. Van Houte was clearly identified as aligned with Latino voters and was their preferred candidate. The court finds that the 2015 *692 voting for Place G under the 6-2 map and plan was racially polarized.
Dr. Alford testified that Ms. Van Houte would not have won without crossover support from Anglo voters, and that she needed a higher percentage of crossover votes, “something in the high 30’s,” than a Latino candidate, because she was not as dominant a candidate among Latino voters as a Latino candidate. Bench Trial Tr. 6:124-25, 6:129-30. Dr. Alford agreed that Ms. Van Houte almost lost her election despite receiving 70% of the Latino vote. She could not have slipped much lower in Anglo support than the 41.6% she received and still have won. Id. at 6:138-39. Dr. Alford conceded that the single largest factor between Ms. Van Houte’s at-large victory in Place G and the defeat of the Latino candidate in Place H, described in the next subsection, was the level of crossover voting by non-Latino voters. Id. at 6:175. In short, the election of the Latino-preferred candidate depended on significant and unusually high Anglo crossover voting.
b.The 2015 At-Large Race for Place H
In the May 2015 at-large election for City Council Place H, pitted a Latino candidate, Oscar Del Toro, against an Anglo candidate, Darrell Morrison, who had represented District H in the 8-0 map and plan. Mr. Del Toro received an estimated 39.1% of the citywide vote and 87.3% of the Latino vote. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶ 64). He lost to his Anglo opponent, who received 71.7% of the Anglo votes. (Id.). Only 28.3% of the Anglo voters voted for Mr. Del Toro. (Id.); Bench Trial Tr. 1:118— 19; Pls. Ex. 255.
Mr. Del Toro testified at trial. Before the election, he did a by-precinct turnout analysis. The analysis showed that predominately Anglo South Pasadena would have greater turnout rates than the more heavily Latino North Pasadena. He concentrated 70% of his door-to-door campaign on South Pasadena. Bench Trial Tr. 5:164-65, 5:170, 5:174. Mr. Del Toro encountered racial hostility while campaigning in South Pasadena. 11 Despite his concentrated and concerted efforts, few Anglos voted for him. Council member Wheeler testified that there were no policy differences between Ms. Van Houte, who narrowly won her at-large race, and Mr. Del Toro, who resoundingly lost. Id. at 5:138-39.
Dr. Engstrom concluded, and this court finds, that the 2015 at-large race for Place H under the challenged 6-2 plan was racially polarized; and that Oscar Del Toro lost the election as a consequence. Id. at 1:119; Pls. Ex. 255.
c.The November 2013 Special Election on Proposition 1
Dr. Engstrom examined the results of the November 2013 special election on Proposition 1, the proposal to change from the 8-0 single-member map and plan to the mixed 6-2 map and plan to elect City Council members. Dr. Engstrom found that Latino voters opposed Proposition 1 with an estimated 99.6% of their votes. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶ 63). Non-Latino voters supported Proposition 1 with an estimated 60.2% of their votes. (Id.). Proposition 1 prevailed. (Id.); Bench Trial Tr. 1:120-21; Pis. Ex. 255. Dr. Engstrom concluded, and the court finds, that the vote in the 2013 Proposition 1 election was racially polarized, and that Proposition 1 succeeded because of Anglo bloc voting. Bench Trial Tr. 1:121.
d.The 2015 District-Level Elections
Three single-member district elections held in May 2015 were racially contested, in Districts A, B, and D. In the District A election, Council member Ybarra, the long *693 time incumbent, was reelected. Latinos supported Mr. Ybarra with 97% of their votes, and Anglos supported him with 55.4% of their votes. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶ 75); Pls. Ex. 255. In the District B election, Celestino Perez, a Latino and the Latino-preferred candidate, was defeated by a slender 34-vote margin. Latinos supported Mr. Perez with 82.0% of their votes, but only 36.3% of Anglos crossed over to vote for him. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶ 76); Pls. Ex. 255. In the District D election, Council member Wheeler, the incumbent for most of the territory making up the new District D, was reelected. Latinos supported Mr. Wheeler with 89.5% of their votes, and Anglos supported him with 55.1% of their votes. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶ 77); Pls. Ex. 255.
Dr. Engstrom concluded, and the court finds, that the District B election was racially polarized. Bench Trial Tr. 1:129. The racially polarized vote in that district was significant and caused the narrow defeat of the Latino-preferred candidate. Council member Ybarra testified that in his opinion, Mr. Perez would have won the District B election if it had been held under the 8-0 map and plan, because the district under that plan would have held 6,000 fewer residents and required less campaign time and expense to turn out the vote. Id. at 2:128-30. District B has a Latino citizen voting-age majority of 58%. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶ 76). Mr. Perez lost the election by 34 votes because of lower Latino turnout and Anglo bloc voting.
e. Exogenous Elections
The parties agree that endogenous elections held within Pasadena are most probative and that exogenous elections are supplemental. Id. at 1:116-17, 6:171-72. But exogenous election results can be helpful in determining whether Anglos typically bloc vote to defeat a Latino-preferred candidate. See Rodriguez v. Bexar Cty., Tex., 385 F.3d 853 , 863, 865 (5th Cir. 2004). “Reconstituted election analysis [of exogenous elections] is a relatively simple method that extracts actual election results from a variety of statewide and local races that subsume the area being analyzed and determines, precinct-by-precinct within the new district, the racial composition of the vote and the ‘winner’ within the new district. This method of aggregation allows a researcher to determine how an individual candidate performed within the boundaries of the target district even though the actual election covered a different geographical area.” Id. at 861.
Pasadena is one of thirty-four municipalities in Harris County, which is among the largest counties in the nation. Dr. Eng-strom analyzed countywide election results limited to votes cast only in Pasadena precincts. Bench Trial Tr. 1:121-22. He also analyzed primary elections, again limited to votes cast in Pasadena precincts. The pattern was clear.
(1). Countywide Elections
• In the 2008 general election race for Harris County Sheriff, Adrian Garcia, the Democratic nominee, received 98.2% of Latino votes and 28.6% of non-Latino votes. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶ 68); Pls. Ex. 255. He lost to the Anglo Republican opponent.
• In the 2012 general election race for Harris County Sheriff, Adrian Garcia ran again as the Democratic nominee. He received 95.9% of Latino votes and 17.6% of non-Latino votes, and again lost to the Anglo Republican opponent. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶ 66); Pls. Ex. 255.
• In the 2010 general election race for County Commissioner, Silvia Garcia ran as a Democrat and received 98.4% of Latino votes and 20.9% of non-Latino votes. (Docket Entry No. *694 94 ¶ 67); Pls. Ex. 255. She lost to an Anglo opponent. Pls. Ex. 255.
• In the 2010 general election for County Treasurer, Billy Briscoe, a Democrat, was the Latino-preferred candidate. He received 82.2% of the Latino votes cast, but only 20.1% of the non-Latino votes. Pls. Ex. 255. He lost to Orlando Sanchez, a Republican. Id. Dr. Engstrom concluded that the Latino-preferred candidate in this race was defeated by Anglo bloc voting. Bench Trial Tr. 1:123-24.
The court finds that Pasadena’s countywide general elections were polarized along Latino and Anglo lines. None of the Latino-preferred candidates won their elections despite Latino cohesive support because Anglo crossover voting was so low. Id. at 1:122.
(2). Primary Elections
Primaries are less probative than general elections for detecting racially polarized voting in an at-large district because general elections present the same candidate pool to every voter, while primary elections limit voters to one party’s candidates. Id. at 1:127-28. Dr. Engstrom examined two Democratic and two Republican primaries and found racially polarized voting in both. He also found that party affiliation corresponded to, and was a proxy for, voters who voted with the Anglo or Latino blocs. Latino-preferred candidates won both Democratic primary races and were eliminated only in the two Republican primaries. Id. at 1:124; Pls. Ex. 255.
• In the multi-candidate primary election for sheriff, Ruben Monzon ran in the Republican primary against seven non-Latino candidates. Latino voters supported Mr. Monzon by 38.6% (a plurality) and spread 61.4% of their support across seven other non-Latino candidates. Non-Latino voters gave 8.7% of their votes to Mr. Monzon. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶ 71); Bench Trial Tr. 1:125; Pls. Ex. 255. He lost the primary. Pls. Ex. 255.
• The 2010 Republican primary for County Commission Precinct 2 results were, according to Dr. Engstrom, uninformative because only a small number of Latinos voted in that primary. Bench Trial Tr. 1:126— 27; Pls. Ex. 255.
• In the two 2008 and 2012 Democratic primaries for Sheriff, Adrian Garcia won as the Latino-preferred candidate, despite Anglo bloc voting against him. He lost to the Anglo-preferred candidate in the general elections. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶¶ 70, 72); Bench Trial Tr. 1:125-26; Pls. Ex. 255.
f Findings on Racially Cohesive Voting in Pasadena Elections
The court agrees with Dr. Engstrom, and finds, that in citywide elections other than primaries, which are less informative because voters are limited to the candidates of a single party, voting is typically racially polarized. In all the elections examined, Anglo or other non-Latino bloc voting usually defeated the Latino-preferred candidate. Bench Trial Tr. 1:128. At the district level, Anglo or non-Latino bloc voting defeated the Latino-preferred candidate in District B. Id. at 1:129. Under the challenged 6-2 redistricting map and plan, in Place G, the Latino-preferred candidate could not win without significant and unusually high Anglo crossover votes, and in Place H, did not win without Anglo crossover votes. Id. at 1:119; Pls. Ex. 255. Successful Latino-preferred candidates in the 2015 election were either aided by incumbency, aided by running in a non-racially contested race, aided by an Anglo identity or Anglo-sounding surname, or aided by a combination of these factors.
*695 In all of these elections, whether successful or not, Pasadena Latinos voted cohesively.
6. Socioeconomic Conditions and the Effects on Pasadena Voting
a. Income, Education, and Employment
The median income in Pasadena is $39,354 for Latino households and $55,896 for Anglo households. The citywide household median income is $46,058. Bench Trial Tr. 1:60-61; Pls. Ex. 196. The differences are even greater between Latino and Anglo per capita income, largely because Latino households tend to have more people than Anglo households. The overall per capita income is $20,146, which breaks down to $13,984 for Latinos and $32,051 for Anglos. Bench Trial Tr. 1:60-61; Pls. Ex. 196.
Citywide, about 51% of Latino households are renters, in contrast to 33% of Anglo households. Bench Trial Tr. 1:61; Pis. Ex. 196. Under the federal standards, only 1% of Anglos live in overcrowded housing compared to 16% of Latinos. Bench Trial Tr. 1:62-63; Pls. Ex. 196. Twenty-seven percent of Latinos as compared to 11% of Anglos live in poverty, a disparity that cuts across all age groups. Bench Trial Tr. 1:62; Pls. Ex. 196. Only 6% of Latinos have a bachelor’s degree or higher, in contrast to 22% of Anglos. Pls. Ex. 196. Only 11% of Anglos have less than a high school diploma, compared to 45% of Latinos. Pls. Ex. 196. Council member Ybarra testified that for District A residents, the income level is lower than the middle income range and the average educational attainment level is a high school degree or less. Bench Trial Tr. 2:12.
b. Living Conditions
Witnesses described different circumstances and conditions between the predominantly Latino North Pasadena and Anglo South Pasadena. Across North Pasadena, the older part of town, the sewers, streets, sidewalks, and water lines were neglected for more than thirty years. The sidewalks are cracked and uneven; some areas that need them do not have them. Id. at 2:8 (Ybarra); 4:13 (Van Houte); 4:178 (Harrison); 5:102-05 (Wheeler). Mr. Del Toro, an unsuccessful 2015 candidate for an at-large City Council place, testified that the streets and sidewalks on the north side of Spencer Highway are in poor condition. Id. at 5:163-64. During his campaign, residents told him that their children could not safely walk to and from school because of the sidewalk conditions, or absence. The streets are full of potholes. Poor drainage produces frequent flooding. Id. at 5:173.
Council member Cody Ray Wheeler testified that current District D would greatly benefit from work on major thoroughfares and that many roads need to be repaved. Id. at 5:100-02. Water and sewer lines in District A need repair. Id. at 2:8-9. Mr. Wheeler continues to receive calls from voters in current District D reporting that they cannot flush commodes when it rains and that lawns are flooding. Id. at 5:103. Mr. Wheeler testified that getting the City to fix streets on the north side “is always a fight. It is always a large effort .... When you call work orders in, things don’t get done as quickly on that side of town.” Id. at 5:101-02. In one instance, the lack of sidewalks meant that Keller Middle School students had to walk in the street to get to and from school. Teachers petitioned at City Council meetings to ask for sidewalks. The City did not respond until media reports described the risks to the children. The City then built sidewalks. Id. at 5:103. In another instance, a street project on a major street in North Pasadena planned for the first year Mr. Wheeler served on the City Council had “yet to be done because the funding always gets moved or another project comes up.” Id. at 5:101-02.
Former Council member Harrison testified that since Mr. Isbell has been Mayor, *696 there has been little repair work on North Pasadena’s infrastructure unless it was funded by external sources, such as Harris County. Id. at 4:176-77.
In Anglo South Pasadena, by contrast, the streets are relatively smoothly paved and more quickly repaired than in North Pasadena. Streets are well lit. There are sidewalks on both sides of most streets, and they are generally in good repair. Rains that produce floods in North Pasadena do not in South Pasadena. Neighborhood associations in South Pasadena help maintain the infrastructure. Council member Wheeler testified that “it is almost another way of life in those parts of town.” Id. at 5:104. Mr. Del Toro testified that in South Pasadena, where he currently lives, there are better neighborhoods, better infrastructure, better houses, and better streets and sidewalks. Id. at 5:165.
c. The Effects on Voting
Based on these socioeconomic factors, several witnesses with long experience in Pasadena elections gave unrebutted testimony that Latino voters in Pasadena are less likely to be familiar with and participate in Pasadena elections than Anglo voters. Because more North Pasadena residents rent rather than own, they are more transient and it is more difficult for candidates to communicate with them. Id. at 2:102-03. Mr. Del Toro believes that Pasadena Latinos are less aware of how to vote and many fear going to the polls. Id. at 5:181-83. Council member Wheeler testified that the Latino voters in his district— old District E, and new District D—are often wary or distrustful of elections and of the City Council itself. Although Mr. Wheeler campaigned to bring more services to the district he serves, many Latino voters believe that “the system is rigged against us.” Id. at 5:147-48.
Council member Ybarra, who was born and raised in Pasadena, testified about campaigning in North Pasadena in 2009 and seeing some of his friends’ parents vote in municipal elections for the first time:
[They had] never voted before in a municipal election!,] had no idea what a municipal election was—they didn’t know who the council members were or who the mayor was. For the first time, you saw those parents going to vote. The first time to realize, I can call my council member. If I have an issue with a department head or a city department, I have a voice. And now those same people, who never got involved because there wasn’t somebody like them up there, now get involved, now call you and tell you, ‘Hey, there is an election coming up. Which candidates do you think we should vote for?’ It has had an effect, and I think, that was, along with other issues, they like to see minority candidates get elected.
Id. at 2:94.
d. Findings on the Effect of Socioeconomic Conditions on Latino Voting
The socioeconomic conditions in North Pasadena dampen Latino voter participation and contribute to making it more difficult for Latinos to elect their candidates of choice, even though when Latinos vote, they vote cohesively. The reasons include a lack of awareness of elections and a skepticism and cynicism about them, driven by the past history and present effects of discrimination, the continuing presence of socioeconomic problems facing North Pasadena, and the continuing problems with North Pasadena’s infrastructure.
F. The Circumstances Surrounding the Change to Pasadena’s City Council Election Map and Plan
The Pasadena City Council often votes in unison. Id. at 5:115-17. However, in *697 recent years, as Latino North Pasadena voters elected more of their candidates of choice to Council seats, votes divided more often, particularly over resource-allocation issues. Id. at 5:116-17. The Mayor and Anglo Council members representing South Pasadena districts usually voted as a bloc to defeat the measures proposed or preferred by the Latino Council members and their allies representing North Pasadena districts. These issues included the 2012 termination of bus service in Pasadena, id. at 2:49-50, 4:180-81; the 2013 appointment of an ally of the Mayor to the City’s economic development board, id. at 2:68, 5:116-17; and the construction of a $10 million water feature in a public park located just north of Spencer Highway that residents would have to pay to use, id. at 2:66-67. Although the Mayor testified that the City Council had over the years voted in favor of certain infrastructure improvement projects in North Pasadena, these projects were far short of what was needed. At the same time, City Council voted to fund major improvements not only to basic infrastructure needs but also to recreational facilities in .South Pasadena. Id. at 2:65-66, 4:179-81, 4:185.
Resource-allocation issues are among the most important decisions any municipal governing body must make. By 2018, Latinos in Pasadena were becoming more politically active and had elected Latino-preferred candidates to the City Council in three of the four existing Latino majority districts—Districts A, C, and D. The election of Cody Ray Wheeler, a Latino with an Anglo surname, in an Anglo-majority district, and the population changes that made this possible, made it more likely that Latinos would elect a majority of Council positions in the 2015 election. Pasadena’s “Latino voters were poised to elect their candidate of choice” and “threatened to oust the [Anglo] incumbent” in District B and deprive the Mayor of a majority of Council votes on the divisive issues that mattered most. See LULAC, 548 U.S. at 438 , 126 S.Ct. 2594 .
1. Recent § 5 Preclearance Objections to Converting to At-Large Voting in Other Texas Municipalities
Until the Supreme Court decided Shelby County in June 2016, Mayor Isbell and the Pasadena City Council knew that if they proposed a change from the eight single-member districts to a mixed single-member and at-large map and plan, they would have to go through the § 5 preclearance process with the federal Department of Justice. Mayor Isbell believed that the Department would likely block the City from implementing such a plan. Bench Trial Tr. 2:221-22, 3:61. The Department had consistently objected to similar proposals made by other cities in the recent past.
On December 21, 2012, the Department of Justice objected under § 5 to a Beaumont Independent School District proposal to change the districts it used to elect school board members from seven single-member to five single-member and two at-large districts. The Department noted that it had previously blocked a Beaumont ISD proposal to consolidate with another school district and elect school board members using at-large voting. See December 21, 2012 Objection Letter from US DOJ Civil Rights Division to Beaumont Independent School District.
On October 3, 2011, the Department declined to withdraw its § 5 objection to a City of Galveston, Texas proposal to change its method of electing City Council members from six single-member to four single-member and two at-large districts. The Department noted that in 1992, it had objected to a proposed map and plan of six single-member and two at-large districts. See March 5, 2012 Objection Letter from US DOJ Civil Rights Division to Galveston County.
*698 On August 12, 2002, the Department objected under § 5 to a City of Freeport, Texas proposal to change how it elected City Council members from four single-member districts to four at-large seats with numbered positions. See August 12, 2002 Objection Letter from US DOJ Civil Rights Division to City of Freeport. The Department concluded that the change would have a discriminatory effect on Latino voters by leading “to a retrogression in the position of members of a racial or language minority group (i.e., will make members of such a group worse off than they had been before the change) with respect to their opportunity to exercise the electoral franchise effectively.” Id. (citing Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board, 528 U.S. 320, 328, 120 S.Ct. 866 , 145 L.Ed.2d 845 (2000); Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 140-42 , 96 S.Ct. 1357 , 47 L.Ed.2d 629 (1976)).
Before Shelby County, it was reasonable to expect the Department of Justice to object to Pasadena’s redistricting proposal because it would dilute Latino voting strength and would at least delay the ability of Latinos to elect the candidates of their choice until Latinos grew to a secure majority of the City’s voting-age population.
2. The Shelby County Decision
On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court invalidated the geographic coverage formula of § 5 of the Voting Rights Act. After the decision, Texas and its political subdivisions, including Pasadena, no longer needed federal government approval before implementing changes to their voting systems. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶ 33).
Mayor Isbell gave an interview around November 4, 2013 to SCOTUSblog. He stated that he proposed changing to the 6-2 mixed map and plan promptly after the Shelby County decision “because the Justice Department can no longer tell Pasadena what to do.” Bench Trial Tr. 3:33. 12 At trial, Mayor Isbell admitted that he knew that the Department of Justice sought to protect minority voters and that it had objected to changing to at-large systems that diluted minority voting strength. Id. at 3:61-62. Mayor Isbell thought that it likely that the Justice Department would have rejected the 6-2 map and plan for diluting the voting strength of Latino voters. Id. at 3:62.
3. The Shift from a Special Election to Approve a Council Bond Proposal to Amending the City Charter
Two days after the Shelby County decision, on June 27, 2013, Mayor Isbell sent a memorandum to the City Council calling for a committee to consider bond proposals for a November 2013 special election and asking each Council member to nominate two candidates to serve on the committee. Pls. Ex. 8. Mayor Isbell testified that he does not remember if he had redistricting in mind when he called for the Bond-Review Committee in 2013. Bench Trial Tr. 2:219-20.
The Bond-Review Committee held its first meeting, which was public, on July 18, 2013, one month after Shelby County. Pis. Ex. 10. The Committee held its second meeting, at which it discussed bond proposals, on July 23, 2013; the meeting was public. Pls. Ex. 11. At some point before July 24, Mayor Isbell asked City staff to draw up maps to see how a 6-2 district map might look. Bench Trial Tr. 3:5. The maps Mayor Isbell requested included a 4-2, a 7-1, and a 6-2 plan. Id. at 3:5-7. By July 24, 2013, the Mayor had at the ready the 6-2 map that the City would adopt in *699 2014. Id. at 3:11-13; Pls. Exs. 245, 246, 247.
At the Bond-Review Committee’s third meeting, on July 25, 2013, Mayor Isbell proposed specific amendments to the City Charter, including converting one or more of the eight single-member districts to at-large districts. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶¶ 34-36). Mayor Isbell made the Bond-Review Committee a Charter-Amendment Committee. The meeting was public. The Mayor distributed copies of the 6-2 map to the Committee members but did not give copies to Council members or the public. Bench Trial Tr. 3:13-15, 4:34-35, 4:41-42.
Several members of the public spoke in opposition to the redistricting proposal. Id. at 4:42. Council member Ybarra stated that the map would result in losing a Latino district and that although § 5 was no longer in effect, the City still had to comply with § 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Id. at 4:39. One Committee member, Victor Villarreal, spoke against the mixed plan and in favor of maintaining the 8-0 single-member district plan. Another Committee member, Bill Welch, objected that the 6-2 plan “dilutes” Latino voting power. He pointed out that South Pasadena turned out more voters, which made dilution in North Pasadena more likely. Id. at 4:40-42. Mayor Isbell responded that 70% of Pasadena’s Latino population were illegal aliens, a figure that witnesses testified was greatly exaggerated. Id. at 2:72, 3:16-17, 4:39-40, 4:43. Mayor Isbell claimed that after the meeting, he learned that the 70% figure was wrong. Id. at 3:17. The court finds that Mayor Isbell knew of increased and increasing Latino voting strength, and therefore of larger numbers of Latino citizens, when he made the comment.
Four days later, on July 29, what had been formed as the Bond-Review Committee and then turned into the Charter-Amendment Committee held its fourth and final meeting. The meeting was closed. Police officers were posted at the door. Members of the public who had first heard about the Charter amendment proposal at the July 25 meeting came prepared to speak, but they were not allowed into the room. Id. at 4:44-46; Pls. Ex. 14. The Committee’s Final Recommendations document, which was sent to the Mayor and Council members, listed the Committee’s recommended bond projects and amounts for each project. Pls. Ex. 21. The document also discussed several proposed Charter amendments that might be taken up at a later date. The document did not discuss, much less recommend, the 6-2 redistricting proposal. Bench Trial Tr. 2:79-80, 3:17-18, 4:51-52; Pls. Ex. 21.
According to the testimony of Victor Villarreal, a Committee member, the Committee voted 10 to 1 against recommending the 6-2 Charter amendment proposal. According to Mr. Villarreal, only Chairman Roy Mease supported the 6-2 redistricting proposal; several other witnesses also testified that Mr. Villarreal or other Committee members had told them the same thing. Bench Trial Tr. 6:6-7, 2:78-79, 5:123-124. Mr. Mease is allied and aligned with Mayor Isbell, who had nominated Mr. Mease to sit on the Pasadena Second Century Economic Development Corporation Board, which he chaired, and to replace the term-limited Port Commissioner. Id. at 3:48-49, 4:47-48.
Mayor Isbell testified at trial that Mr. Mease had told him before he recommended enacting the 6-2 redistricting plan that the Bond-Review, then Charter-Amendment, Committee had supported adopting that plan in its final meeting; that every Committee member had expressed an opinion; and that 8 members were for the change and 3 against. Id. at 2:128-33. But Mayor Isbell testified in his deposition that he did not recall that anyone had told him about the Committee’s *700 deliberations and positions. The Mayor did not correct his testimony until trial, although he read his deposition well before trial and made other corrections. Id The credible version is that Mayor Isbell at least did not know of any Committee vote in favor of changing the City Council election districts, but he nonetheless reported the support of that Committee. It is more credible that Mayor Isbell knew that except for the Chair, the Committee was against amending the City Charter to change the election map. Mayor Isbell’s testimony that he believed the Committee supported the Charter amendment was not credible.
Cary Bass, a Pasadena businessman with close political and business ties to Mayor Isbell, testified. Bench Trial Tr. 4:252-54. Mr. Bass is a current Council member from District E. He was appointed to the Bond-Review turned Charter-Amendment Committee by Mayor Isbell. Id. at 4:255. He recalled little about the Committee meetings he attended; what opinions Committee members, Council members, or the Committee Chair expressed at the Committee meetings; or of any votes taken, straw or otherwise. Id. at 4:257-261. He does not remember whether members of the public were at any meetings, does not remember any discussion about how changing to the 6-2 map and plan would affect Latino voters, and does not remember receiving maps from the Mayor. Id. Mr. Bass does remember May- or Isbell speaking in favor of the 6-2 redistricting plan. Id. at 4:262-65. Mr. Bass testified that no one on the Committee had a strong opinion about the redistricting Charter amendment. He recalled little to no dissent. Id. at 4:257-65. Mr. Bass recalled only that “it made common sense to me and probably one other that might have been in there.” Id. at 5:20-21. His testimony was not credible. His failure to remember the Committee’s discussions on changing to the 6-2 map and plan, and his failure to remember what any member specifically said, leads the court to find that Mr. Bass’s testimony that.the Committee was in favor of the redistricting proposal was not credible. Compare Bench Trial Tr. 4:263-65 with 5:20-21.
4. Council Consideration of the Charter Amendment
At a Council meeting on August 13, 2013, Mayor Isbell introduced the ordinance calling for a November 2013 election on bonds. The Council voted 5-3 on first reading in favor of putting bonds on the November ballot. Council member Ybarra was not present. Pls. Ex. 30. Council member Van Houte examined the bond projects and concluded that the four districts represented by Council members who do not agree with the Mayor on resource-allocation issues—Districts A, C, D, and E, all in North Pasadena—would get only 42.6% of the bond money, approximately $45 million, despite much greater needs than South Pasadena. The districts represented by Council members who consistently agreed with Mayor Isbell on resource-allocation issues—Districts B, F, G, and H, all in South Pasadena—would get over 50% of the bond money, approximately $60 million. Bench Tidal Tr. 4:58-59. Council member Van Houte voted against the bond proposal. Id. at 4:56.
Mayor Isbell sent the City Council a memo dated August 15, explaining that he was withdrawing the bond ordinance because he believed that the lack of 'unanimous Council support meant a failed bond election. Instead, he proposed an ordinance that would place the redistricting Charter amendment on the November 2013 special-election ballot. Pls. Ex. 22. Shortly after that, a Committee member, Larry Peacock, emailed the Mayor to say that the Bond-Review turned Charter-Amendment Committee had decided against the redistricting proposal. Pls. Ex. *701 23. This email appears inconsistent with Mayor Isbell’s testimony that he did not know of the Committee’s opposition to changing the map and plan for electing Council members by mid-August 2013, before the Council met to consider it.
At the August 20 City Council meeting, the Council passed on first reading Ordinance 2013-126, which called for a Charter-amendment election to include the 6-2 redistricting proposal. The vote was 5-4, with Mayor Isbell, Steve Cote, Phil Cayten, Bruce Leamon, and Darrell Morrison—all except Mr. Leamon (District B) representing districts in South Pasadena— voting in favor of the ordinance. Council members Van Houte, Harrison, Wheeler, and Ybarra—all representing districts in North Pasadena—voted against. Bench Trial Tr. 2:84-85, 4:62, 5:126; Pls. Ex. 172.
The discussion by City. Council and members of the public at the August 20, 2013 Council meeting focused on how the 6-2 redistricting plan would make it harder for Latino candidates to get elected. Id. at 2:85-86. Bond-Review turned Charter-Amendment Committee member Victor Villarreal spoke against the Charter revision at the meeting, calling it divisive for the community and reporting the Committee’s 10 to 1 vote against the proposed Charter revision. Id. at 6:7-8. Council member Van Houte recorded in her notes of the meeting that the comments by members of the public all opposed the new plan. Id. at 4:60-61. The Council passed Ordinance 2013-126 on second reading. The vote divided on the same lines as before. Id. at 2:86; Pls. Ex. 173. Former Council member Harrison stated in the meeting that he thought the change would violate the Voting Rights Act. Id. at 4:193-94. Council member Van Houte also thought the change to a 6-2 plan was potentially illegal. Id. at 4:62.
5. The Campaign to Enact the Charter Amendment to Change to a Six Single-Member, Two At-Large District Map and Plan for City Council Elections
a. Improper Use of City Resources to Mobilize Anglo Voters in South Pasadena
In the campaign leading up to the Charter-amendment election, the Mayor’s appointees improperly used City employee time and other City resources to campaign for, and turn out votes in favor of, Proposition 1, the proposal to amend the Charter to replace the 8-0 plan with the 6-2 redistricting map and plan. Mayor Isbell funded a specific-purpose political action committee known as Citizens for Positive Change to urge a “yes” vote on Proposition 1 in the November 2013 Charter-amendment election. Id. at 2:88, 3:24-25. Richard Scott was the organization’s secretary, and Cary Bass was its treasurer. Id. at 4:222; Pls. Ex. 7. As treasurer, Mr. Bass was in charge of receiving and depositing donations and paying the invoices billed to the PAC. Bench Trial Tr. 4:267-69. Mr. Bass did not inform himself about the PAC’s fundraising activities or donor solicitations before he paid the bills. Mr. Bass testified that he did not ask where the money was coming from, did not initially know that the committee was formed and funded by the Mayor’s political action committee, did not know what a political action committee was, and did not research the laws or regulations that applied and that he had to comply with. Id. at 4:270-276, 4:279. He testified that he just relied on Mr. Scott’s assurances that there would be enough money to cover expenses. Id. at 4:274-75.
Mr. Scott—the Mayor’s appointee as Director of Community Relations—used City resources to organize an event at a restaurant on October 3 to promote Proposition 1. Mayor Isbell’s political action committee *702 paid for the event. Id. at 4:224-25, 4:276-277. Mr. Scott called the meeting a “kickoff’ event for the Proposition 1 campaign. Id. at 4:220-22; Pls. Ex. 329. Mr. Scott sent letters and emails on his City work time and using his City email address to invite people to the October 3 event and to solicit donations for the Mayor’s Citizens for Positive Change committee, which backed Proposition 1. Id. at 4:220-22; Pls. Ex. 329. He also used his City email during work hours to send Proposition 1 mailers to be distributed to the Pasadena Chamber of Commerce, to review a draft of a yard sign, and to do other work mustering support for Proposition 1. Bench Trial Tr. 4:219-20; Pls. Ex. 44. Mr. Scott’s testimony that he worked on the Proposition 1 campaign during his City work hours, using City employees working on City time to help him, was laudable and credible, given his knowledge that what he had done was improper and would, at a minimum, expose him to harsh and public criticism. Bench Trial Tr. 3:31, 4:214-16, 4:249-50; Pls. Exs. 33-36, 38, 40-42, 44, 51, 143, 327-36.
Mayor Isbell was deeply involved in the Citizens for Positive Change political action committee work. Bench Trial Tr. 4:269-70, 4:274; Pls. Ex. 32. The committee reported $39,500 in expenditures by Mayor Isbell’s campaign account between July 16, 2013 and January 15, 2014, representing all of his account’s spending for' that period. Bench Trial Tr. 3:24-25. Mayor Isbell commented on, and approved, drafts of campaign materials, including mailers, yard signs, and robo-call scripts, for Citizens for Positive Change. Id. at 3:25-28; Pls. Exs. 113-16.
The Mayor and his appointees also used Pasadena’s Neighborhood Network Grants Program to target and mobilize voters from South Pasadena to vote for Proposition 1. The Neighborhood Network Division is a department within the City that helps neighborhoods form associations, helps with deed restrictions, and distributes grants to neighborhoods. Bench Trial Tr. 2:113-14; Pls. Ex. 347 at 32-35. Neighborhood Network matching grants are given to neighborhood groups for recreation centers, pools, basketball courts, and beautification projects. Bench Trial Tr. 2:114; Pls. Ex. 347 at 32-35. The average annual budget for the Neighborhood Network matching grants is between $75,000 and $100,000. Pls. Ex. 347 at 67.
Most of the Neighborhood Network neighborhood and homeowners’ associations are in South Pasadena. Bench Trial Tr. 2:115; Pls. Ex. 31. Council member 'Van Houte testified that she is aware of several North Pasadena neighborhood groups that are finding it hard to get the formal City recognition needed to qualify for the matching grants program. Ms. Van Houte testified that part of the problem is that the Director of the Neighborhood Networks Program devotes more time and attention and is more responsive to South Pasadena than to North Pasadena. Bench Trial Tr. 4:15-16, 4:157-58. Council member Wheeler testified that there are only two active neighborhood associations in current District D and that most of the homeowners’ associations are in South Pasadena. Id. at 5:141. Mr. Wheeler testified that after he was first elected, he contacted the Director of the Neighborhood Network Program and asked for help forming neighborhood associations in his district. Id. at 5:141-42. The Director met with Mr. Wheeler in her office and offered to send letters out and help arrange a meeting of residents. Id. Mr. Wheeler did not hear from the Director again. There is still no new neighborhood association in the district. Id. The most recent North Pasadena neighborhood association formed was in District C. This association was formed after the plaintiffs filed this suit and propounded discovery about the disparities between the North and South Pas *703 adena neighborhood associations. Id. at 3:127; Pls. Ex. 242.
Council members Van Houte and Ybarra testified that funding from the Neighborhood Network Program does not flow in equal amounts to the north side and the south side of Pasadena. South Pasadena has more neighborhood programs recognized by the City, and those programs receive more grants. Bench Trial Tr. 4:15, 2:115. From November 4-8, 2013, the Neighborhood Grants Program issued checks totaling $99,532.22 to neighborhood associations south of Spencer Highway, and $776.23 to neighborhood associations north of Spencer Highway. Id. at 4:63-69; Pls. Exs. 89, 346 at 10. Issuing the checks requires prior approval by the Grant Review Board and by the City Council. Bench Trial Tr. 4:164. There are no payments described as “Neighborhood Grants” in the City’s online check registry in the twelve months before the November 4 to 8, 2013 campaign period. (Docket No. 147). The election was held on November 5, 2013. Pls. Ex. 308.
The court finds that the City and Mayor used Pasadena’s Neighborhood Network Program to promote voting for the candidates and issues they favor. Bench Trial Tr. 2:115. The City and Mayor gain support from predominately Anglo South Pasadena in part by sending significant grant money and lending substantial City organizational and resource support to that part of town. Id. at 5:142-43. Homeowners’ associations are told at Neighborhood Network Program meetings and events which candidates and positions they should support. Id. at 5:86-88, 4:226. The October 3 event at a Pasadena restaurant promoting support for Proposition 1 was one such meeting.
Bianca Gracia is a homeowners’ association president from South Pasadena and founder of the Latino Trump Coalition. Id. at 5:84-85. She attended the October 3 event at the invitation of the Director of the Neighborhood Network Program. The invitation billed the event as a homeowners’ association Board of Directors appreciation social. Id. at 5:85-86. When Ms. Gracia arrived, Mayor Isbell and Council members Darrell Morrison, Phil Cayten, and Steve Cote were asking the attendees to support Proposition 1, to take yard signs to display and hand out, and to talk to neighbors to promote votes for Proposition 1. Id. at 5:86-88. Council members Ybarra, Wheeler, Harrison, and Van Houte, all Latino-preferred Council members and all representing primarily North Pasadena districts, were not invited. Id. at 2:120.
Council member Wheeler testified that the Neighborhood Network Program was used to help campaign for Proposition 1 and other issues. The Neighborhood Network Program has the email addresses of homeowners’ association leaders and can mobilize them easily. The Neighborhood Network Program hosts award ceremonies and gives favored neighborhoods money. Council member Wheeler testified that the message to South Pasadena residents is, ‘We have $10,000 for you right here. You raise this money and we are going to match it, but we need you to keep electing us.” Id. at 5:144-45. Mr. Wheeler testified that the sentiment among voters in his district in 2013 was “a feeling that they were left behind, a feeling that our district wasn’t a concern, a feeling like you just see—you look at Fairmont and see new roads, new streets. You see neighborhood associations. You see so many things over there and you look at our district and we weren’t getting those things... like they kind of forgot about north Pasadena where Pasadena started.” Id. at 5:112-13.
b. The Use of Race and Party as Proxies for Each Other
Throughout the Proposition 1 campaign, Pasadena officials used partisan terms as *704 proxies for race or racial terms. Ms. Gracia testified that at the October 3 Neighborhood Network Program meeting at the restaurant, she was offended when Council member Steve Cote said that if the voters did not vote for Proposition 1, Pasadena would “turn blue.” Id. at 5:87-88, 5:90-91. A Republican activist in the 2016 presidential campaign, she nonetheless understood the comment to mean that Pasadena would fall under the power of Latinos, coded as “Democrats.” She was the only Latino in the room. Id. When Ms. Gracia went to the next City Council meeting to voice her concerns about using the Neighborhood Network Program to promote Proposition 1, Mayor Isbell called her to his seat and asked her repeatedly, “Who sent you here?” Id. at 5:89-90. In response to the Mayor’s question, Ms. Gracia pulled up her sleeve, pointed to her skin, and asked the Mayor whether he thought the color of her skin meant that she had no voice and could not come to City Council and speak. Id. She later met with Steve Cote, who apologized for making the remark. Id. at 5:90-91.
In one of his City emails campaigning for Proposition 1, Mr. Scott forwarded a Houston Chronicle article from another Pasadena employee to a Citizens for Positive Change vendor on September 6, 2013. Id. at 4:217-18. He stated that the Proposition 1 campaign “could use [the article] in one of our brochures, Republicans will really like.” Id. The Chronicle article attached to the email discussed opposition to the change to the 6-2 redistricting plan as diluting Latino representation. The articlé did not mention Democrats or Republicans. Id.] Pls. Ex. 35.
In preparing a mailing list to target voters to receive campaign materials in favor of changing to the 6-2 map and plan, Mr. Scott wrote a campaign vendor and recommended using Mayor Isbell’s campaign list from a previous campaign but asked the vendor first to “pull out Hispanic names” from the list. Pls. Ex. 34. At trial, Mr. Scott testified that when he wrote “pull out Hispanic names,” he meant to direct the vendor to pull out the names of Democratic voters. Bench Trial Tr. 4:240. When asked by the court why he said “Hispanics” if he meant “Democrats,” Mr. Scott testified that he did not know, but then testified that he thought of “Hispanic” as a proxy for Democratic voters and “Anglos” as a proxy for Republican voters. Id. at 4:242. Mr. Scott testified that he did not know how many Latinos received the mailers he sent through Citizens for Positive Change. Id. at 4:216-17.
c. The Result
On November 5, 2013, Pasadena voters approved Proposition 1 by a vote of 3,292 to 3,213. The voting was racially polarized. 13 (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶ 51).
6. Council Approval of the 6-2 Map and Plan
On February 18, 2014, the City Council passed on second reading a proposal to amend City ordinances to limit debate time in Council meetings to three minutes per Council member on each issue. Pis. Ex. 191. Mayor Isbell initiated the debate time-limit proposal, which passed by a 5-4 vote with his tie-breaking vote in favor. Id.) Bench Trial Tr. 5:130-31. Council members Van Houte, Harrison, Wheeler, and Ybarra opposed the measure. Bench Trial Tr. 4:72, 4:194-95, 5:130-31; Pls. Ex. 191. Mr. Wheeler testified that he believed the Mayor spearheaded the debate time limit because “council members [we]re making some very good arguments that were in opposition to the mayor’s policies. And often they went over two minutes and I think the mayor did not like hearing opposition to him. I also think that he was *705 about to propose a plan that was very-controversial, very complex and required a lot of information, so I think he wanted to muffle council members and also reduce the amount of speech that we had during public comment.” Bench Trial Tr. 5:131-32.
The City held a public “Redistricting Workshop” on March 4, 2014. The City Council discussed the proposed redistricting maps and plans the Mayor commissioned from the law firm of Bickerstaff, Heath, Delgado and Acosta, LLP. Pls. Ex. 187. Council member Van Houte testified that she would have liked, but was not permitted by the Mayor, to discuss the maps and plans with the lawyers and consultants who prepared and reviewed them for the Mayor. Bench Trial Tr. 4:70.
At a March 18, 2014 City Council public hearing on redistricting, Council members and members of the public raised concerns about the legality of the 6-2 maps. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶ 53). Mayor Isbell brought a pistol to that hearing. Council member Cody Ray Wheeler saw the pistol when the Mayor dropped it. Bench Trial Tr. 5:132-35. City rules forbid Council members or others to bring guns to Council meetings. Id. at 5:134. The Mayor testified at trial that the weapon was a pellet gun; that it was a pellet gun that was broken; and that he brought it because he had received a threatening message at the company where he worked. Id. at 3:37-41. The credible evidence, including Council member Wheeler’s testimony, is that the gun was a 9-millimeter Beretta. Id. at 5:132-35. Mr. Wheeler not only grew up around firearms, he also served for four years in the Marine Corps, where he worked in the Armory. He credibly testified that the 9-millimeter Beretta is Marine standard issue, that he both shot this weapon and saw hundreds of them during his military service, and that the weapon the Mayor dropped was the same firearm. Id. at 5:132-35.
Both Mayor Isbell and Council member Wheeler testified that after the Mayor dropped the gun, he quickly picked it up and left the room. Id. at 3:41-42 (Isbell), 5:134 (Wheeler). Mr. Wheeler thought it likely that Mayor Isbell had brought the gun to this meeting because the topic was the controversial one of redistricting. “It is my personal belief that it was, that he knew what he was proposing was controversial [and] he had altered city rules.” Id. at 5:135. This is a more credible account of why the Mayor brought the weapon to the meeting than the Mayor provided. The Mayor testified at trial that he carried it because a threatening message from a woman against him and his family was left at the oil company where he worked. Id. at 3:37-41. In his deposition, the Mayor testified that he did not know the source of the threats that caused him to carry a gun on March 18, and did not know if it was a male or female. Id. at 3:40. In short, neither the trial testimony describing the type of gun he carried or the reason he did so are credible, although this evidence is only marginally probative of the issues before the court.
At the April 1, 2014 City Council meeting, Council member Pat Van Houte expressed concerns over the legality of the redistricting plan. Council member Van Houte exceeded her three-minute debate-time limit. Mayor Isbell ordered police officers to remove her from the Council chambers. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶ 54); Bench Trial Tr. 2:112-13, 4:196; 5:136. When Council member Van Houte was removed, Council members Harrison, Wheeler, and Ybarra also walked out in protest. Id. Mr. Ybarra walked out because he felt that Mayor Isbell had given more time to Council members and others speaking at meetings before the redistricting proposal, on topics far less important. Bench Trial Tr. 2:112. Mr. Wheeler explained that he “felt that everything up to *706 this point, the [election contest] lawsuit, the negative campaigning, the proposal for the redistricting, the weapon being brought, the way that we are limited in speech and then he kicks her out of the meeting, the whole process felt like a sham. And the fact that even the charter committee voted against it, everything felt like it was a sham. And it didn’t matter what anybody did or what the people wanted, the mayor was going to get his way. And I walked out in support of Van Houte and walked out in protest of the whole process.” Id. at 5:136. The 6-2 redistricting map and plan was passed on first reading with only the four remaining Council members and the Mayor in attendance. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶ 54).
On April 15, 2014, Council’s second-reading vote on the 6-2 map and plan divided 5 in favor and 4 against. Mayor Isbell and Council members Leamon, Morrison, Cay-ten, and Cote voted “aye,” and Council members Ybarra, Wheeler, Van Houte, and Harrison voted “nay.” Id. at 2:113; Pls. Ex. 185.
G. The Impact of Pasadena’s New Election Map and Plan
1. The Previous 8-0 Map and Plan
Pasadena adopted its previous 8-0 single-member redistricting map and plan in 2011 and held one election under them in May 2013. In that municipal election, Latinos elected their candidates of choice in three of the four Latino-majority districts: A (Ybarra), C (Harrison), and D (Van Houte). In Anglo-majority District E, a Latino candidate with an Anglo surname, Cody Ray Wheeler, was elected by a 32-vote margin. Bench Trial Tr. 5:122.
District E in the 8-0 plan was not a Latino-majority district. 14 It consisted of a 45.8% Hispanic voting-age population and 44.6% Spanish-surnamed registered voters. Pls. Ex. 195-3. In his 2013 race for City Council District E, Cody Ray Wheeler’s campaign increased total voter turnout to 837 from 458 (in the District E 2011 runoff election). Bench Trial Tr. 5:107-08; Pls. Exs. 237, 238 at 21. Council member Wheeler testified that his Anglo surname helped him get Anglo crossover votes. Bench Trial Tr. 5:110. Other experienced politicians in Pasadena believe that Mr. Wheeler’s victory in 2013 was the result of his Anglo-sounding name and the Anglo votes that attracted. Id. at 2:124-26, 4:196-97.
In 2013, District B elected an Anglo-preferred candidate, Bruce Leamon, who aligned with the Mayor and who had the support of the Mayor’s political action committee. Id. at 5:118-19. Council members Ybarra, Wheeler, and Van Houte testified that, given District B’s strong majority of Latino citizen voting-age population and Spanish-surnamed registered voters, the District was likely to elect a Latino-preferred candidate in the 2015 election. Id. at 2:128-130, 5:118-19, 4:141. They also testified that, if the 8-0 district lines remained, all four Latino-majority Council districts would elect a Latino-preferred candidate in 2015 and the incumbent Cody Ray Wheeler would be reelected in Anglo-majority District E. Id. As a result, they believed that in 2015, Latino-preferred candidates would hold a majority of seats on the Pasadena City Council for the first time in the City’s history. Id. at 5:118-19. The court finds that Mayor Isbell and the Pasadena City Council believed this as well.
The court finds that when the Mayor proposed changing to the 6-2 redistricting map and plan, when the City Council voted *707 to put it on the November 2013 ballot, and when the Council voted to approve its enactment, City officials knew that unless the district lines were changed, a majority of the City Council members would be Latino-preferred candidates by 2015 or shortly thereafter.
2. The 2015 Election under the Current 6-2 Map and Plan
In the 2015 City Council election held under the 6-2 redistricting map and plan, Latino-majority District A elected Ornaldo Ybarra and Latino-majority District C elected Sammy Casados. Pis. Ex. 239. Latino-majority District B once again elected the Anglo-preferred candidate, Bruce Leamon, this time by 34 votes. Id. Anglo-majority District D elected Cody Ray Wheeler, who ran as an incumbent in the parts made up of the old District E. Id. In the 2015 at-large race for Place G, the Latino-preferred candidate, Pat Van Houte, defeated Steven Cote by a slim 143-vote margin. Id. Both candidates in the Place G race were Anglo and former City Council incumbents. In the 2015 at-large race for Place H, the Latino-preferred candidate, Oscar Del Toro, was defeated by Darrell Morrison. Id. Mr. Del Toro is Latino and Mr. Morrison is Anglo. Council members Wheeler and Van Houte relied on significant Anglo crossover voting to win election: 55.1% of non-Latino voters supported Mr. Wheeler in District D and 41.6% of non-Latino voters supported Ms. Van Houte in Place G. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶¶ 65, 77).
After the change to the 6-2 redistricting map and plan, the number of Latinos voting in Pasadena elections from November 2013 to May 2015 decreased. Despite rising Latino voter-registration rates, the number of Spanish-surnamed registered voters who cast ballots in 2013 was 1,161, compared to 1,015 in 2015. Pls. Exs. 344, 345. Council member Wheeler testified that the change in the redistricting map and plan from 8-0 to 6-2 was disheartening to many Pasadena Latinos, who were already wary or distrustful of the City’s governance. Bench Trial Tr. 5:147-48. Although Mr. Wheeler had campaigned to bring more services to his district, seeing the Mayor redraw the lines “unfortunately [ ] confirms their fears that the system is rigged against us. We win an election, but, you know what, they move the field goal back and move it back farther and farther and they don’t have the same support.” Id.
Latino voter registration in Pasadena dramatically rose from 2015 to 2016. The City’s expert Dr. Alford testified that an uptick in registration is normal in presidential election years, but the increase in Latino registration in 2016 was “dramatically larger” than expected. Id. at 6:30. From 2011 to 2016—that is, from one presidential election to another—non-Spanish-surname voter registration decreased by an estimated 1,434 voters. Over the same period, Spanish-surname voter registration increased by 6,255 voters citywide. Def. Ex. 43. Dr. Alford believed that the unusual features of the 2016 presidential campaign, including a candidate perceived as especially hostile to immigration, drove these changes. Bench Trial Tr. 6:30-31. He also believed that the 2016 campaign and the consequent rise in Latino registration was unforeseen and unforeseeable when Pasadena adopted the 6-2 voting map and plan in 2013 and 2014. Id. at 6:31-32.
Despite the recent and dramatic rise in Latino registratio

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7241761. Public record. Not legal advice.