1. I offer the Court this declaration because I believe that it is helpful for the Court to consider the extent to which the reapportionment process is inescapably political and value-laden. The drawing of district boundaries requires the weighing of many different and often conflicting interests. Any result will be a political result pleasing to some and not to others. Tests that could be used by the courts to manage cases, like this one, in which a partisan group petitions the courts to impose a judicial result in a state in which one political party claims to be disadvantaged by the outcome of the political process, are not neutral but political in their outcomes, and trade-offs between and among the various tests that might be used require the exercise of political judgment.

2. In the early 1960s, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the principle that members of Congress must represent districts containing equal numbers of individuals (regardless of whether they vote or are even eligible to vote) as measured by the United States census. The application of this standard required only that the courts determine the respective populations of districts, a readily manageable task. The plaintiffs in this case, however, are asking the Court to do something much more difficult, namely protect the interests of one of many political or social groups, and have suggested that there may be an ideal degree of collective “effectiveness” of votes cast by a particular group. This is an entirely different matter.