28 CFR 51.59 – Redistricting plans
(a) Relevant factors. In determining whether a submitted redistricting plan has a prohibited purpose or effect the Attorney General, in addition to the factors described above, will consider the following factors (among others):
Terms Used In 28 CFR 51.59
- Jurisdiction: (1) The legal authority of a court to hear and decide a case. Concurrent jurisdiction exists when two courts have simultaneous responsibility for the same case. (2) The geographic area over which the court has authority to decide cases.
(1) The extent to which malapportioned districts deny or abridge the right to vote of minority citizens;
(2) The extent to which minority voting strength is reduced by the proposed redistricting;
(3) The extent to which minority concentrations are fragmented among different districts;
(4) The extent to which minorities are over concentrated in one or more districts;
(5) The extent to which available alternative plans satisfying the jurisdiction‘s legitimate governmental interests were considered;
(6) The extent to which the plan departs from objective redistricting criteria set by the submitting jurisdiction, ignores other relevant factors such as compactness and contiguity, or displays a configuration that inexplicably disregards available natural or artificial boundaries; and
(7) The extent to which the plan is inconsistent with the jurisdiction’s stated redistricting standards.
(b) Discriminatory purpose. A jurisdiction’s failure to adopt the maximum possible number of majority-minority districts may not be the sole basis for determining that a jurisdiction was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.