mr. hearne. you are not contesting the factual finding that the predominant motive was to comply with the voting rights act, is that right? mr. hearne: we take the factual finds. we don't protest those. but what we do believe is that the court applied the wrong burden shifting standard in their analysis of those facts. when they have a mixed motive, the proper response would be to say ok, you've shown, we've found one illegitimate motive. justice kagan: you keep on saying mixed motive and people come on back to you trying to figure out whether you are in fact or are not in fact, contesting that the predominant motive was the voting rights act. mr. hearne: when we say the voting rights act -- justice kagan: the attempts to comply with the voting rights act. and the court found, and it is a factual finding, that that's the motive. i don't want to harangue you on this. i just want you to understand what the argument is. mr. hearne: to be very clear, yes, we accept the factual finding that that was w

mr. hearne: please. justice kagan: if you're saying that even within the 10% to go 2% to 3%o 2%, and from and somebody can come in and say , that is partisanship it means , that every single plan will be up for grabs in every single place. doesn't it? mr. hearne: i don't think it does. and the answer would be it doesn't because in this case there were no other legitimate reasons to explain it. if that is the reason and the only reason to deviate only other legitimate reason to deviate from one person one vote then it , is not a constitutional plan. but that's not present in all the other cases. justice roberts thank you, : counsel. the case is submitted. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] announcer: we are going to show the supreme court oral argument over the executive orders that would result in undocumented immigrants from staying in this countr

mr. hearne: thank you, may it please the court, the one person, one vote principle of the equal protection clause requires an apportionment authority to make a good faith effort to equally apportion the population as possible. while deviations are tolerated, they are only minor dooef yaigss of a rational state policy intended not to be discriminatory or arbitrary. here, the arizona redistricting commission mel apportioned state legislature by almost 10%

mr. hearne. you are not contesting the factual finding that the predominant motive was to comply with the voting rights act, is that right? >> we take the factual finds. for the district court. we don't protest those. but what we do believe is that the court applied the wrong burden shifting standard in their analysis of those facts. when they have a mixed motive, the proper response would have been to say, okay, you've shown, we found illegitimate motive. >> you keep on saying mixed motive and people come on back to you trying to figure out whether you are in fact or are not in fact, contesting that the predominant motive was the voting rights act. >> when we say the voting rights act, i want to make it clear -- >> and the court found, and it is a factual finding, that that's the predominant motive. i don't want to harangue you on this. i just want you to understand what the argument is. >> to be very clear, yes, we accept the factual finding that that was what they said was a primary motive. bu

general hearn, you have four minute remaining. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. >> what about footnote ten. you agree with the characterization that the other side has made? >> well footnote 10, no i do not. the portion i would quote was not limited just to district 8. partisanship was rank in this redistricting process and is demonstrated objectively with the chart and by the fact of district 8 which was not submitted for preclearance. >> i want a finding. i want a finding. i don't want to look at a chart to make my own factual determination. what factual finding other than footnote 10 is there. >> from the appendix of 107a where the statements judge clifton correctly finds that the irc was actually motivated bipartisan advantage and hope for voting rights preclearance. we have a majority finding for that fact. that is two members of the court specifically found that partisanship was tw one of the two motives to explain these deviations from one person, one vote. clearly it was a motive, at that point, as even judge silver noted. >> to what extent