III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Having made its factual findings, the Court now turns to its legal conclusions. The Court makes its conclusions of law in the light of Plaintiff’s burden of proof in this case. Plaintiffs must show by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants violated Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act. See Langston ex rel. Langston v. ACT, 890 F.2d 380, 383–84 (11th Cir. 1989) (noting that the plaintiff in a § 1983 suit bears the burden of “prov[ing] his case by a preponderance of the evidence” at trial); League of United Latin Am. Citizens #4552 v. Roscoe Indep. Sch. Dist., 123 F.3d 843, 846 (5th Cir. 1997) (indicating that in the Voting Rights Act context, the plaintiff was “required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that all of the Gingles preconditions were satisfied”); Swaters v. Osmus, 568 F.3d 1315, 1323–24 (11th Cir. 2009) (“The [affirmative] defense must be established by a preponderance of the evidence.”) The Court ultimately finds that Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show that there has been a violation of Section 11(b) by any of the named Defendants in this case.