This was already addressed by the 11th circuit 10 years ago in Martinez v Bush.http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2475542509712946718
136. The legislature's overriding goal with respect to congressional reapportionment 1301*1301 was to adopt a plan that would withstand legal challenges and would maximize the number of districts likely to perform for Republicans. The legislature had no purpose to discriminate against black or Hispanic candidates or voters. To the contrary, the legislature affirmatively intended not to discriminate against black or Hispanic candidates or voters. The legislature recognized that adopting districts that would not dilute black or Hispanic voting strength was fully consistent with— perhaps even essential to—the goal of adopting a plan that would withstand legal challenges.
137. The legislature's plan included three districts (still numbered 3, 17, and 23) intended to perform for black candidates of choice.
138. It is likely that CDs 3, 17, and 23 will in fact perform for black candidates of choice, and that black candidates of choice will be elected in these districts throughout the coming decade.
139. The legislature determined, correctly, that increases in the Hispanic population made it feasible to draw a third reasonably compact district that would perform for Hispanic candidates of choice. The legislature's plan included three districts (two still numbered 18 and 21 and a new district numbered 25) intended to perform for Hispanic candidates of choice.
140. It is likely that CDs 18, 21, and 25 will in fact perform for Hispanic candidates of choice, and that Hispanic candidates of choice will be elected in these districts throughout the coming decade.
141. Race was considered in the drawing of CDs 3, 17, and 23, and Hispanic status was considered in the drawing of CDs 18, 21, and 25, in an effort to enhance performance of the districts for black or Hispanic candidates of choice, to avoid dilution of the votes of black or Hispanic voters, and to comply with section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Traditional districting principles also were considered and respected in the drawing of these districts. No effort was made to afford blacks or Hispanics substantially greater than proportional representation or to afford them representation inconsistent with traditional districting principles. Neither race nor Hispanic status was the controlling or predominant factor in the drawing of such districts.
142. CDs 3, 17, 23, 18, 21, and 25 are reasonably compact.
143. CDs 3, 17, 23, 18, 21, and 25 in fact comply to a reasonable extent with traditional districting principles.
144. No greater number of reasonably compact performing minority districts reasonably could have been drawn.