Account at all. Its uncontroverted because nobody says he turned the political stuff off for Guilford County. All they did is a cross check as a Guilford County to make sure it wasnt a retrogression problem with the Guilford County which is exactly what he should do by the way. But talk about theory similarities. It was Guilford County and it was greensboro and cromartie ii, and what this court said in giving that direct evidence relatively minimal rate was to say if you look at the rest of that email, the map drawer was very candid about taking race into account in drawing cd one and theres much less race involved in cd12 so it didnt predominate. The similarities could not be more dead on with this case. The most you can get out of Guilford County is that race was taken into account in some way that did not make it predominate, and this in evidence as in cromartie ii, that if you contrast the way the legislature proceeded with respect to cd one and cd 12, its virtually impossible to think that this is all a pretext. I understand why you want to search a little more when you have a legislature who comes up with his racial maps and they say, race had nothing to do with it. When the legislature repeatedly says we treated cd12 differently from cd one, i would think you would want some substantial evidence before you secondguess that conclusion and overrode it. And i would think but isnt there are substantial evidence that congressman watt comes in and he sits in the witness stand and he says i had a conversation with the map drawer and he said my bosses told me i have to get up over 50 point 1 black votes. That seems like substantial evidence that congressman says, reports on a direct conversation he said with a map drawer, who says he has received orders from on high. No. Thats the thing. Theres a dispute whether that conversation ever took place. In the record in this case you have the senator who protest thats not what happened if you have another witness. Its all in the record. Wasnt there a credibility finding . Didnt the district judge say the three Justice Court say they credited watt and not rucho . They did say that but that only get you to the point that. I mean, even if rucho said that, i didnt get translated to the map drawer. They make multiple public statements that say that cd12 is not a racial draw. Its a political draw. You look at all the other evidence, ebony get back to the maps because heres the thing. You didnt just make that stray comment in cromartie ii. You did at your analysis in the opinion where you look at the maps. It wasnt like the problem in cromartie ii was they didnt have alternative maps. The problem was they had the alternative maps and they showed they are very, very useful just because race and politics also highly correlated. When you try to draw an alternative map as in cromartie ii and its like guess what, you can get a better racial balance only if you pair to incumbent . I understand the problem of cromartie ii. I understand it, believe me. I think that the problem in cromartie ii is it doesnt say in all cases. Its really clear. I write enough for a purpose. The court rights when it sits in a case like this one, its a little ambiguous, but it means it. By the time as time progresses, we face with juicy and i see as the problem right now now, whics a set of standards that District Court cant apply, which will try to separate sheet from goats, without as spending the entire term reviewing 5000 page records, right . That is a problem yet by the time, pretty clear by the time we get to the later cases. I understand your argument. Ill go back and look at it. You think its determinative, the cromartie ii. Im not so sure. I think it is because you didnt just say indicate such as this one. You sit in a case such as this one where, its a majorityminority districts or a closaclose approximation and raf politics are closely correlated. I will give a third criteria. In the cases where the legislators stated goal was politics, not race. You actually said it would your also absolutely right. He for you decide whether its a sheep or goats, i think its fair to say that there are two breeds here, generally. There are the cases where wheree more common ones, the alabama cases, the shock cases, all cases where the state consents and cd one, all cases with a stake in zen says it was race. It was race because of the Voting Rights act. We dont think race predominated. If it did, we survived strict scrutiny. The smaller cases, the state consents as it was a race at all. It was politics. They are highly correlated but it was politics. Its very sensitive cases for the state because if the state does that, as this case shows, if they lose because they are found to have dissembled, they dont even get to the second half of the case. I cant come up and argue as politics not race, but if you think were lying, by the way, we narrowly tailored. You dont have that opportunity. There has to be a high threshold. Cromartie ii addresses those cases like a laser beam. If you want to give guidance to the lower courts, dont tell them you fake them out in cromartie ii. Save that you are going to stick with that and identify this class of cases and said thats the test for those kind of cases. Its not the worlds biggest burden to come up with an alternative map. If the alternative map shows the way you take politics into account to the same extent with better race is by parent income to make a district that looks like this look like this, which is exactly what you found in cromartie ii. You looked at those maps and it was not beyond the ken of man to come up with alternative maps in that case the problem with the alternative maps in the case is that actually showed that the legislation was exactly what you want me to say it is even though the dishes court listen to the map drawer and delete them, and his statements are pretty much against you, and then they heard to other state senators, and they were pretty much against you, and its up to the District Court to if i wouldve the strength of witnesses, and came to the conclusion on the basis of that that, in fact, race was really the explanation. Despite that come everyone who comes in has to have an alternative map. If we have five independent and so forth we will have five or six different alternative maps drawing i dont know, 100 state legislators and so forth. Thats what im supposed to say . First of all, i dont think that the direct evidence here is of a character that is materially different from cromartie ii itself. And i would say that, look, your kind give District Court directions for a whole bunch of cases. Everybodys going to be able to say i have direct evidence. The quality and character of it is going to differ from case to case. What i think you should do is in this class of cases where the states defenses politics not race, is is all five intervenors can get together, pool the cause, kidney at least one alternative map that shows that you give me at least one alternative map without a comparable effect on race. I dont think thats too much to ask. I think would make your jurisprudence much more administrable. It would have the virtue of applying star decisive because you did say in cromartie ii. And again everyone of this court cases says this is an extremely difficult business, that is inherently legislative business, that it is a humbling and big thing to have a court secondguess these decisions. So i think in a world like that especially when you already said it, to say that there is alternative map requirement as a gatekeeping function, to guide a District Court, to give the District Court the same tools you use in cromartie ii, to say its easy to say it was a pretext. But when i look at this, and im going, at the end of the day im going to look at that alternative map in conjunction with the evidence but im at least going to be guided by something that says there was another way to do this, and it really does make you think that this direct evidence is a lot more probative than it might otherwise, because i see there the was an easy alternative. If they really want to help the democrats hurt the republicans or vice versa they could have done with a completely different racial balance. What do we do with our statements in miller, that what the evil we are trying to address is the use of race . Once it is met you dont need a manifestation of it. You did just the use of race. Does it predominate . Thats the evil the constitution is intended to avoid. Your way is to say that state legislatures go out and always say its politics, because its real easy to say politics, even though theres a lot of direct evidence that it really was race, and put the added burden on a plaintiff down to do a map where you will come up and say on their map, this takes care of the problem. Another political reason for not doing it that way. Theres another political reason for not doing it this way. Its impossible to ask a plaintiff to come up with a raceneutral map in light of the entire region. The issue is, are the state legislators prohibited from using race predominantly . If they are and the proof is they have, then they should go back to the drawing board and do it without it. I think at the end of the day in these districts where you basically have one party saying it was politics and the other party saying its race, you do ultimately have to have a mechanism for determining which one it was. Our humble point is everybody agrees that they are highly correlated. That creates the possibility for abuse, so we are not saying they shouldnt be any test. This is a difficult thing. It is a particularly damning thing to say that a state legislature, especially when theyre being candid about their use of race of cd one, to say that they are dissembling is a pretty big thing. Its going to be the only issue in the case because there isnt going to be any strict scrutiny because they will say we didnt take race into account at all. Its not beyond the cant of man or woman or anyone else to come up with an alternative map and is not just doing it to be mean or imposing calls. You wont have to look at the cromartie ii opinion to show how they can really show if you do that you will elongated. Thats not going to be the case in every case. In some cases you can come up with a perfectly functional alternative map. If i could turn my attention now to cd one which is a case that is more like the virginia districts in the sense that here it is, it is the about use of race in order to preserve a majorityminority district. As to this one in particular, we think the District Court erred in a blank strict scrutiny simple based on essentially the adoption of a bvap floor of 50 point 1 . The easiest way to the firm is probably to do with the North CarolinaSupreme Court did, which also confronted a Distrit Court that applied strict scrutiny because of bvap floor was applied but the lower courts had a blank strict scrutiny we think this is nearly tailored. The north, Supreme Court said this a court screwed up on finding strict scrutiny trigger but nonetheless we agree this is nearly tailored. I think you can do the same here. Youll be reversing the District Court but it may be the easiest way to decide cd one. Because here the map drawers, of course they admitted they take race into account but they were dealing with the difficult problem, which is a had the head benchmark map that had cd one as a majorityminority district. To be sure, it it was a coalition tested, a little bit north of 48 bvap but also lost 97,000 votes. So they want to preserve it as a majorityminority district. Based on the reading of strickland and some of the things they say the safest way for us to do this is to get it over 50. 1 so we will tell the map drawer that we want this over 50. 1 picked the map drawer gets that instruction and draws tradition that ends up at about 52 point 6 . The very fact its at 52 and not 50 point one shows shows its not like this ratio was preserved over everything else. But also i think its worth in escape particular to understand its not like there was a myriad ways to do with the map drawer did in this situation. There were two opportunities. You could either draw the district to get part of wake county, and that would get you over 50 or you could go into drama and get over 50 that way. The first time the map drawer do the map drew in wake county. Thats 50 . There was some backandforth, and he decided we will do the durham county. To what extent and what circumstances does section five of the Voting Rights act require that a contiguous district be drawn in order to comply with strict scrutiny . Assume youre using race and inure to comply with strict scrutiny. To what extent do you think that pra requires a compact contiguous district . I think requires a recently contiguous district. This is a situation where you hat and more compact district and or to get in the wake county or durham you would essential out to extend that district to capture those territories. The one thing i would say before sit down about cd one is i thik it is telling to look at representative butterfields testimony in the record. What the lower court found is the reason that we lost on strict scrutiny was there was not racially polarized voting and cd one, or more particularly the state had not done enough to show that. Nobody thinks that there is a racially polarized voting in cd one. They dont think that. They think we didnt do enough to prove it but itll think that. Representative butterfields doesnt think that and he was the incumbent. The dispute is not over whether his racially polarized voting. Whether well, as representative butterfields testified its got to be released 45 . 46 or 47 is probably better. They couldnt go south of 45 . He said its fully twothirds of white voters will never vote for an africanamerican candidate in cd one. He admits it was racially polarized. All this case comes down to not about whether we like racial targets or dont like racial targets. Its when you get the legislation affects which is between 47 or 48 on 48 on the one hand or 50 point one or 52 on the other. In deference to legislature meets anything that has to be within the deference. Thank you, your honor. Thank you, counsel. Mr. Elias, welcome back. Mr. Chief justice, and may it please the court. I would like to jump in, because just go through district 12 as my colleague did and then talk about cd one. The problem that the state has in cd12 is that finding a predominance was more than amply supported by the record that the trial court found, and we are under a error standard. The question as, justice breyer, you pointed out is whether race was a dominant and controlling factor in moving a significant number of voters in or out. It seems that the primary defense that the state has, in trying to overturn the decision of the lower court, is that an alternative map was not introduced. While certainly an alternative map is a way, it can be that it is the only way to introduce evidence. Theyre all matter of ways to prove that race predominated. I would point out that we offer no alternative map in alaska. I would point out that we offered no alternative map in trantwelve, which was the case you are earlier this year. Well, why not . Because in each of these cases, and in alabama they offered no alternative. In each of these cases there was no need to provide an alternative map to prove it circumstantially what amply existed directly. It is not true that the state of alabama in that case, or the state of virginia in this case, did not assert political motives as a defense to some of the districts. Did they in respect to this district, district 12 . Because when i go back to trantwo, i think his right. It does say that at least when the evidence is close, where its a close question, when one side is saying its racial, the other side is saying its political, then it says the party attacking the legislatures of boundaries has to show that the legislature could have achieved its legitimate political objectives in alternative ways that are equally consistent with traditional principles. It does say that spirit and says, your honor. So what is it that you suggest . My having been quite strong for following story decisive in this, but what do you suggest about that . I would say two things, justice breyer. The first is im taking issue with the suggestion that trial courts are confused. And that this is a reverse of the trial court. The trial court was not confused at a map was not required. The trial court explained why. Not a map but sometimes, some type of evidence they could have achieved political objective with less reliance on race. Thats what it seems to say. Are you saying it doesnt say that . There i may think you might say. Im not suggesting the answer. I want to know what you do say. Or you could say it doesnt matter because we are giving way to the District Court doesnt matter, isnt that important. I dont want to suggest something. Im not. I want to hear what you think. I think that the language in cromartie ii that is being focused on is discussing that case, the case in which as you say there were lots of maps. That was a fundamentally a maps case where each site is proving the case through maps, principally through circumstantial evidence of what was in various versions of maps. In that case you at least have to offer one that shows you achieved the goals, the Political Goals without race predominating. I would point out as an important footnote, on remand, the state and north guillen did draw a remedial map in this case. Case. So its not hypothetical whether they could draw a map that achieve their Political Goals that not jerry mehta based on race because, in fact, the state of North Carolina after this to a map on Political Data not using race data and, in fact, drew this district at a lower bvap and yet protected the republican nature of the district. Did they say that map serves political ends to the same degree as the map that is before us . I dont know what it if they didnt say that then, the fact they were able to draw another map doesnt really prove anything. If a legislator says this was based on politics, and as though we could achieve our political objective without doing this, they cant prevent print a negative. So it makes sense to turn the other side and say, prove that thats wrong. Prove that the political ends could be served without drawing t