position is both more logical and more readily applicable in practice. As noted above, while Gingles addresses multi-member districts, its analysis also applies to single-member districts. De Grandy, 512 U.S. at 1006-07, 129 L. Ed. 2d at 788. The first Gingles precondition is premised on initial proof that a single-member district could be constructed with a majority of minority voters. Gingles, 478 U.S. at 50 n.17, 92 L. Ed. 2d at 46 n.17. Gingles further states that the single-member district “is generally the appropriate standard against which to measure minority group potential to elect” candidates in a multimember district. Id. In light of Gingles’ use of a numerical majority of a minority 2005); Valdespino v. Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist., 168 F.3d 848, 850 (5th Cir. 1999) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1114, 145 L. Ed. 2d
holding we reject the appellants contention that a majority may be less than 50 of the citizen votingage population holding that demands for benefits not less than 10 million dollars contributions greater than 50 million dollars and less than 100 million dollars and attorneys fees not less than 150000000 were ambiguous and did not satisfy the sum certain requirement holding that gross sales of less than 5000 to fewer than 50 customers were below the minimum threshold for market penetration holding that apprendi does not apply where the defendant was sentenced to less than the statutory maximum holding less than twothirds of the stock