FrRST TRIAL,
Iqll- ,llS;). AAI'D
LtlJ1)A~'D ( ,0..,1..
UAV£S) .
Pt.1:4J)IN~~/ 1976~
197~ /9JJ (4~ Lcl/V~)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
NOV - ti 1982
Jf\~EPH McELROY, JR., CLERK
bY
__.
.
_
Deputy
1'.1:: V. ROY JONES, et aI, and
Intervenor, ROSE \-;ILSON
Plaintiffs
NO. CA 5 76-34
vs
CLASS ACTION
THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, TEXAS,
et al.
Defendants
PLAINTIFFS' AND INTERVENOR'S A}mNDED
COHPLAINT
1. Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervrnor, Mexican American and
Black citizens of Lubbock, Texas,
bring this action pursuant to
42 U. S. C. 1971, 1973, 1983 and 1988 to redress a denial, under
color of state law, of rights privileges or immunities secured to
Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor by the laws and Constitution of
the United States.
2. Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor seek a declaratory judgment
that the existing at large method of electing members of the City
Council of Lubbock violates
Plaintiff~
and Plaintiff-Intervenor's
civil rights in that such method illegally and unconstitutionally
I
:1
I
dilutes the voting strength of Black and Mexican American ·citizens;
Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor seek a permanent injunction
prohibiting the holding, supervising or certifying of any future
City Council elections under the present at large system;
~nd
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff-Intervenor seek the formation of a City Council of
sufficient size so as not to
dil~te
or cancel out the voting strength
of Blacks and Hexican Americans; Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor
seek the formation of a Council whose members, including
th~
Mayor,
are elected from single member districts; Plaintiffs and PlaintiffIntervenor seek costs and attorneys I ··fees.
II.
JURISDICTION
3. .lurisdiction i5 based on 28 U. S. C. 1343(3) and 1343(4).
~:l-'Cn
causes of acticn arising under 42 L'.
S.
C. 1971, 1973, 1983, 1988,
I
"nd the 14th and 15th Amendments t.o the United States Constitution.
Declal'iltOl'Y relief is authorized by 28 U. S.
c. 2201, 2202, and
Ru Ie':> 7, F. R. C. P.
III. PLAINTIFFS AND
Pl.AINTIFF-INTERVENOR
4. Planitiff REV. ROY JONES and PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR are Black
United States citizens, tax payers and citizens of the City of
Lubbock, Texas, and qualified voters entitled to vote for members of
the City Council of Lubbock, Texas.
5. Plaintiff
GONZALO GARZA is a citizen of Mexican American
descent, a tax payer and citizen of the City of Lubbock, Texas, and
a qU31ified voter entitled to vote for members of the City Council
of Lubbock, Texas.
6. Plaintiff JUAN ANTONIO REYES is a citizen of Mexican American
descent, a tax payer and at the time this suit was filed a citizen
of the City of Lubbock, Texas and a qualified voter entitled to vote
for .. embers of the Cit}, Council of Lubbock, Texas.
IV. CLASS ALLEGATIONS
7. This Court has previously certified the class to include
all Black and
~!exican
American citizens of the City of Lubbock,
Texas.
V. DEFENDANTS
8. Defendants BILL McALISTER, M. J. "BUD" ADDERTON, ALAN HENRY,
JOAN BAKER, AND E. JACK BROlm are citizens of Lubbock, Texas, and
the Mayor and members of the City Council respectively of Lubbock,
Texas.
The City of Lubbock is organized and exists under the
laws and the Const.itution of the State of Texas.
VI. CAUSES OF ACTION
9. The present at large system of electing City Council members,
i:llentionally created and/or maintained with a racially discriminatory
purpose, violates the civil rights of Plaintiffs and PlaintiffIntervenor by unconstitutionally diluting their votes.
10. The present at large system of electing City Council members,
~llh
ul regard to intent in its creation or maintenance, results in
-2-
--
a denial or abridgement of the right to vote of Plaintiffs and
Plaintiff-Intervenor in that the political processes leading to
nomination or election of City Council members of Lubbock, Texas,
is not equally open to participation by Plaintiffs, PlaintiffIntervenor, and the class they represent, in that they have less
opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate
in the political process and to elect representatives of their
choice.
VII. EQUITIES
11. Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor have no adequate remedy
other than the judicial relief sought herein, and unless Defendants
are enjoined from continuing the present at large system, Plaintiffs
and Plaintiff-Intervenor will be irreparably harmed by the continuing
violation of their civil and legal rights. The illegal and unconstitutional conditions complained of preclude the adoption of remedial
provisions by the electorate.
The present electoral scheme is without
any legitimate or compelling governmental interest and arbitrarily
and capriciously cancels, dilutes and minimizes the force and effect
of Plaintiffs' and Plaintiff-Intervenor's voting strenJth.
VIII. ATTORNEYS' FEES
12. In accordance with 42 U. S. C. 1973-1(e) and 1988,
Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor are entitled to receive reasonable
attorneys' fees as part of their costs.
PRAYER
13. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs and PlaintiffIntervenor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, pray that Defendants be cited to appear and answer herein;
that this action continue to be maintained as a class aLtion;
that
a declaratory judgment be issued finding that the existing method
of electing City Council members is unconstitutional and illegal;
that Defendants be permanently enjoined from holding, supervising
or certifying any further City Council elections under the present
at large system;
that this Court order the formation of a city council
council of sufficient size so as not to dilute the vo ing streng h
of Black and Mexican American citizens; that this Court order the
-3-
:'ncmber districts; adjudge all costs C\gainst Defendants, including
reasonable attorneys' fees; rctain jurisdictions to render any and
.""Ill
further
or'der~ ,,~
appropr~ate:
this Court
j,k1}'
from
limc to time deem
and grant any and all further relief both at law and in
equity to ~hich these Plaintiffs and the class they represent
l":'.ay show themselves entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM L. GARRETT
ATTORNEY AT LAW
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
8300 Douglas, Suite 800
Dallas, TX 75225 ~
214/,
3~9::.~
B~:"::~wr;:~n~la"'m~
..~"""J;;;"r"'r:-::eC::t'i:t~0T-,7"'00ni:0;""SOUTHWEST VOTER REGISTRATION
EDUCATION PROJECT
201 N. St. Mary's St., Suite 501
San Antonio, TX 78205
512/ 222-0J24.
By:
DANIEL H. BENSON
TOMAS GARZA
ALBE RT PREE Z
MARX HALL
c/o MARX HALL
Attorney at Law
1402 1exas Avenuv,
~
LUbbo¢k, TX 7940 IY
.,
.
By: _ _--',-.:.,..:.l_·~-'-/--"---'-J!-'-=--At~orneys
for Plaintiffs
LANE ARTHUR
Attorney at Law
1216 Ave. K
Lubbock, TX 79401
/.~-
By :_-;:._....:..'--'-.._'_/_---':_...:~::~::_:::-=--'-__
Attorney for Plaintiff-Intervenor
-4-
~
,/h-'j / /
_ .. r - - " ' -
.•
~
,"'
'
C1IUQIIU>
uy mailing
.1
copy of same lo their
oJl101llt.'yS 01 record by U.S. mad, postage plt.:!'dld, lo the fullowing addresses:
r·h. John Hoss. ell y Altorney
!-Ir. James 13,"('\-,'::;1('(", Cit y Trial Attorney
I. II h hod: ('lly 11,,1\
916 Texas Ave.
l.ubbock, Texas 79401
Mr. Tra\ois D. Shellon
AllOl'ncy at I.aw
1801 Ave. 0
Lubbock. Texas 71J40J
~~=""-':-i="~/""'=£:
BY' __
Attor'n .. ·y for P~fs
/-
IlY'_--=-~/
_ _-,-_=~""",';;,·:---:-,o..,.-=__
Allorm'Y for Plainliff-Inlervenor
I.IIRRnCK
.\
nIVISIO~
t,1 \1 l.,\ I ~ES.
Plaint i ff,
CIVIL
ACTIO~
NO.
CA-S-76-:l4
nil: r I j"Y OF U1RKOCK, ;\~n nn: MAYOR AND
CIT\' COU~"'1. OF I.UBBOCK ( ROY BASS.
1.·IROI.Y' 11ORI),I'. BILL \lcALISTI'R. IlIRK
\\1 'iT, ·\loA'l 1IJ::\Rn, IN THEIR f\I',\CI rY -\S
r:OIl~C:11. m; 1.llRROCK,
'1I"'tBI"RS ,)1" Tllf 1:ITY
.\~,\\tEN
I)F IlF.Ft:\ll.\\:l. CITY OF I.IIRRfK:K. TEXAS, I:T .\1.
___ ~~~ )..:~TElfVI~~R'.:~~~~(~O~~n:~IIF.ll (~!P~•
...nw
.Iordan. BTla'
rrll'mher~
CO'IES the ('ltv uf I.uhhun..
rl':<a~.
a !lome Ihlll'
~lt1nit.."ipal
tor·
Lampbell, nir$.. "-cst. ·\Ian Ilenr)', all in th('ir C'apal.:lt\· ,IS
nf thl" l.it)' Coun,," I 1 of l.11hho("k. ncff'ndantl" in the i\bove-!"ty·led anu
numbcrC"c.l .. all~e. and make an'" fi 1(" this tht"ir A.nswer to Intervenor's SeC'ond
,\mended Complaint. filed herrin b,' !lose Wilson, Intervenor Plaintiff, and
woult! show the Court:
FI RST OFFENSE
Oefendants special 1)' except to Intervenor's COIIplaint. Paraaraph 9.
1n that Intervenor does not adequately llefine the tel'1llinology "pa!l't official
acts of discrimination" with suffident detail and clarity to allo,," Defendants to prepare fin adequate defense to
ology.
alle~ations incorporatin~
said ter-in-
Specifically, Intervenor states that !>aid actions havl' required _"bers
of thl' purpoTted class of Intervenor to live only in certain geographic
areas and, in addition, have caused thell to suffer
eco~ic
deprivation.
Intervenor wholl}' fails to define her t('I'1IlS and those specific acts whiC'h
have created th("~f' .. huation .. , tlll~ l.·xlsten~'(' of which llefendant!" den)', nt"
whll'h "'pecial eUf'flt ion
lJefcn,l:Int~ fl~a)' Jud~m('nt
of this Court.
~ri1ph II
that the City Counci I or other Oefcndants arc rcsponsihll' for tht'
rt'"l,h.'nt''' tht'rt'ln prt'v(·nt:-. ",aid n'SllJpnts frail
Ih telldallf~ "',H.'l..'i:lllr llcm'
:11.1'
\'Iarltv to
Inter\'l~nor JUl'S
thl'
:lllC'g3tion~
adC~u3t("lr
from said arca:"
in Intf'n'cnor'!=, I'ar:.-
define the I imitat Ion of
,Ill,}..: Pt"'cndant to prep,lre ,in adcquatC' dt'f"nsc
"'1'('\'1 fi..::all)'.
Bl:IC~~
not
1IO\'in~
":tll\.'gatlons
In'('1"\ l'nnr \'nmplains that Ila"t di"'t'riminat lOil
have fNl'lired them to live onl\" In ('crtain
"~co~rarhl\.·
:lIo::Iln~t
ar<";I .... 1,oIt 1\-
out dcflnlnJ,: the houndarics Ill' sau! ''):cographic areas", of "hit'h "'p<"cial
eXt'cpt ion
IIcf('ndant~ rra~
judgalCllt of thi s Court.
FOlJRTIl OF.HSSE
Oefendant!' specially l"xcept to Intervenor's raraRraph
1~
because
Intervenor doe.. not adequately define the teminology "unre!'ponsivc" with
~\Ifficient
detai I and clarity to allow f)efendants to
defensr to
alle~ations incorporaTin~
prepare an adequate
said tC'rllinology.
Spedfi..:allr, Inter-
venor cOllplains that the City Cound I h,IS h"en unrespon!'ive to tht.' needs of
BI ..cks without defining what necds, if .. ny, hav" not been met by the City
Counci 1 and how they hAve heen unresponsive. of which
~pecial
exception
Defendant" pray ,Judaaent of thi .. Court,
I' JFTII OEFFSSJ'
------
I.,·fcnIol3nts spcdally tlen)' th,'
~ra(lh
II 1n That Interv"nor illfll ics that
allcltation~
~h,' ~as
in Inh'rvenor':; Par'·
not rf.'Cl'l\·cd prC1rH"r s:o\",'rn-
!Drnt r'''!}fl'''cntat Ion for th" rt -Ison t hat no IIC11hcr of thl' Ci t y r.llIn .. i I Ii \ ("'"
In ner flrip,hhorhood, "ithoUT
"pcclfrill~
i)cfC'ndantc: special lr •
..::crt,111:
"'ITt'a .. "
~..:C'rt
:tnd rlet:liling the
fOl' h..-r
tn Inh'T\"I'nnr':-. Cnmplaint, r:lr;t·
I'cft'rred t,l tl1\.'r(';1\ "Ith suffi.'il'nT
·1·
r"a~un:o'
lI,'fall
anll .. Ia,'ity
t('l
,,110_
tit)
nnt ,·,..... 1.1..• an the.... ···Ir'·:a .. •• "'Ithollt dcfininy" tht' hountl.lri«... ,S of ~aiJ ·"arl'a~" •
.,f
"'ll
h 'I,p,'jal ,'XCl'pt ion p,·tt',"lants pray
.Jud~ml'nt
of this Court.
SI:\'1:~TII nEFrNSJ:
--------
JI,·f,."t1t1ant:-o ':1'",,'1;,11)'
p.'!'" I: t',.,t
~
t
r~:llg
t
J.("n~'
th{' all."p,ations in lntl·r\l·nor' ... Para·
n::l~es
"H' at -Iarl:'- S\·,t,·r., .Ii Illtl'S and
incff"ctil'l' thl.'
\'otin~
'j
.!t'f'· ,IllY .. Ollst Itut InnaII:: protl·ct,·tt riJ.:ht.
ttl
I I(;J
t.
nil IIJ:Ff''lSi:
f"'.
"IN'm nl'l'l'ssl:
nefendants specially exccpt to Intervenor's Complaint, !'.aragraph Il, in that
Interv~nor
does not adequatelY define the terminology
"pattl'rns "f racial discriminat ion" referred to therein with sufficient
detail an,1 clarIty to allow "efl'ndants to prepare an adequate defense to
alleg.1t Ions lnClHporatlllg said
t"'rnl1nolo~)'.
Specifically, Intervenor
('omplains th"t the prescnt at -Iargl' system is a reflection of 10nj!-standinR
"patternsvf racial discriminatIon", of which special exception Defendants
pray .Iudgment of t his Court.
TENTH nF.FI'SSE
"efendants spectally dcny the alleRat,ions in Intervenor's !':lraj!rar.t' 12 that certain provis,on'
0'
the rhart"r of the r.itr of
I.ubhoc~
and
Con"'. 1 I fut Ion.
-1'1.1'\'1''''1'11
-- ..I1HF;"SF
_--Ioefend,,""
speda1ly ex,'cpt to Int"n'enor's ParaRraph
I~
for the
,,·"".... tnat th(' ohJ",'t ion, in thaI p.,rar.ral'h arc' pre<!i.:atc<! upon til,' vio!:lt ion
·f f!H' "t:l)nst itllf inu". :&1".1 lf1tl'rVl'nnf' .'holly t'ai 1:-: to spc,,'ify which
t.lfi'l' .. ~'l·
I
II I "
Illti.
...
"l'I"lll~
111'011.
":,'I!
Lllllu't: 'h·prl\·c· ... PC'f(Olhlant:-o u(
t:on~t
i-
the o(lpor·
._- ·_----
TIl:"
11'1 '{Ill llt:I'E:\SI'
... -.-
I."
;lral'h
that Inte'rve'llor
.I,
Sp<', I f h'a II .. , IlIlervenor
it
is unllke'ly that
Cit~'
~t
doe'~
a fl'"
Coun,'11
lIot :Hle'luat"')' definl'
til('
I h;o I "n'cent ('\'ents" havl'
mt'mber~
tcrmlnolol:,"
d"moa" I rat "d
and \oters of I.uhhock "III
to..."rd amendment on th" City r.harter to provid,' for an ell'ct iOIl
h" I
wor~
~ystem
011,,'1'
than an at-large method of election, of whl<:h special excrption Ilefendants
pray
,Ju<J~ml'nt
of this Court,
FOURTI't::-", IJEFI:SSF.
Uefendant~
sp"l'I:lIly CX('''pt to Int"rvenor's Complaint, Para-
graph 13. wherein it is stated, "Ilefendants will be ,",ound ther"by and
wi II not br free to exercise any discretion to eliminate the unconstitutional dilution of voting rillhts", for the reason that said pleadilllls
arc
va~ue
and indefinite, and additionally are inconsistent with the
Intervenor's oth"r statements concerning alternate solutions to the prohlems,
to- .. it:
Intervenor's statem,'nt that thl' systl'm may he' change'd h)' an at-
large ('Iectioll. of which special exception
Ilefcndallt~
pray .)udllmenl of th,s
Court.
r I FTI: I: '\"11 I
"e'fend:'"t~
he'reln
;l<'II"I'"II~'
111,1'1'''-;1'
deny the' alle;lat
lon~
,'onl.llned III
,11 areaS' of Intervenor's pl,'adinp.s fur the r"ason that they ('('nta;1I me're'
which allej(at iOlls ar" wholl)' In"ffl'"t ie'l' to out
nefrnd"nt,~
on not i,'l' as !o
II", ('Iaims of Interv('nor.
lIefendanls furthe',' <pedally dc'ny all alh'j(alh,ns LIt' t',d and
an,1 demand
~
t I' i ct pronf t h"rt'nf,
-4 -
• I'
.
~'
'"
t.:
~
I I.: .. I •
• . ', .
....... ,
.r: ,.:
n·d I • • ....·ut, ~.
! t • . 't ·"ru. :
I'. l;. llux : .. <1:,
I
11'.
I
t
uhh,,,.',,.
h',a~
-~11:;-
111.\\'''' I'. _III i.rm.. ~.
1:,,)" ; ~. h "t r.~t.'t
11I""u,,~. T"~a"
1\\':
\ ,......
~!14111
\~. ~~~..:....... ~: _\~_~
\l
tor:wy" '''.r Hefen"ant
I'l.'nn I ~
Thb. is t.l "pr!ify Ih.• ! II trlll'
IL'~"
Il~'n :~I1I\, .. rsi·y.
..............
'IJlt '."
1;'"
Luht.· .,.
I, '~I
I.\TI'.S
"".I
".
"k('~j II
,orrp.:t copy nf th,' "ho\l' :11,,1
-'MIl!', :IIlJ ~Ir. I;",,· \rlll,,!'. 'klr.>
h
,II· t:OI'o;SI:1.
_
UIII'ID . . . IUftl[Cf COR!
NCIl1'IaIf DlS1IIICT ,. . . .
WBIOC& IJIYII[.
I
I
A. 0IIlK G&IJID. IT AL••
Plailltiff
••
_
I
CITY elf' WIIClC&. AID
PI CITY aMlfCIL
_ lat.
, . UIIIDCI (1Dr _ ,
I
caau
I
JoaaJI, IIIU. 1D.LtS1D,
II.~,
I.-r),
D
(UICITY U _ , .
_ CITY ODWCIL ,. I.-al.
~
...
Del_dante
I
I
l.i. . . . . . . . . . . ~ ~ D t
I.
TIll. ia
8ft
action .MId. a _cluatl. t_t tM .,.eon of at-1u'Ie
IIf tile City eo-d.1 of "tile Cit~ of IMIIec* ia
electi... for
_lta_1, ud
....... f , .
lajIIactl. reatnlldll& tile
el~
WlOllIt-
.meld. of tile City of
-'.a.. tIIo•• ,.,mal•• of tit. City Cllu'ter of tile Cit~ of
........ ,...mti.. for
at-1u'I. eloctl. of ........ fI6 tM City
ee-cll.
II.
hrlMictl. ia CllIftfo""" .. till.
• UOl, . . . .2 .-: • 1913,
-.rc ..,
» E • • lJU(J), UU(.)
OIl. tile 1«11 ... Utll
h
,. to tile adt"
m.
P1ai.tiff-lllt......r ..... VilMa, a Ilac* ......, ia a elU. .,
c..
..,.r, • • elector of tile Wt" Itat••, tile kat. of tau, .... tile Cit,. of
......., Tau, ..., a. a qIIallfi. . .Gter 1. tile City of lubbeclt, t . . ., ia
of U. City e-ci1 ., tIM
. u t i.. to , . . tor
t....
Ci~
of lubllodt,
1m •• 1at flaoe, ........, 'f. . . .
1laUt1ff red
IY.
ftallltlff-illt• ..".... brillp t ..... action
IIalt ., all Ila_
Co
~.
IIIM1f of boraelf and on
.-uti.. oloeten of tM City of ~ , fa...
U, F-...u We. of Ghil...........
_ ...__ eMC jtUlIer of all
., law or"'a. _
OIl
to all
n la
•
~
JllU'RUt
cla.. layobed ia ..
~ctlcabl..
ftlore are ..e.tiou
of tile c1ua• • clai-. of tile plai....
the .-&lers
01·
tDe
c.La.Il.
IId·. .Clant.
Mye act. ., aM ..11 act, _ ........
lenerally applicable to all -.ber. of the claN, ~M""" aIelfti aJll'Ofl'late
dec1aft~o.., ...u.f
fi_l injllftctin relief and corre.poa4iq
the
ca••
as a whole.
Plaintiff-inten.or ........
~1Iat
~o
witla ree,.et
tM e.ft 4ft
,
under the applicable proviaiona of Rule 2.1. Federal lllIlea of Cbtl Procoda
that thi. action is appropriately aintainabl. . . a cla.. aeti.,
that it be .ntained a. a c:la.. acti. in .ClCOI'dIBce
tiona of plaintiff.intenBlor'.
wi~1a
,
order
alle&a-
tile
c:cIIIP1atat.
Y.
Defendants are all eid••• 01 tile
Unt~ed
It&t••,
'~te
of Taaa, lad
City of Lubboc:k. and reside witilln aaid c:l.t,..
VI.
Alan
Defendant •• Roy Bass, Carol", Jordan. Bill lIcIUiater,
Din VeR, ....
Hen.., are tile city counc:l." of the Cit,. of
.~~.
,
ud Mn their offlc:ea at 9li ' _ . , Lablloc:k, ,
of ,
,
.
m.
Thi. action ill bI'oqht apta.t ~ ......... . - . cl~ -ct~ (ta~
...., .ucceraon) in their ottic:l.al e:ataclQ. tile _
the clef
City of
~Ilel.r
t. relate. to their
C&I'I"JiIII
...u.,
eut of Q.
___
elecd.. bIfa of tile
bboc:k with re.pect to the electi. of ci~ C_d'-'l
calliftl for the boldiftl of eleeti. . .
~Wr
8fHlfi~,
ClU'cUlcad.. of tile . . . .t.
of the electi••• tMir preparati. of a.llClt., ... tWr taIIl.. of all
_er
atep. neQO."'" for tile boldiftl of .eIl el.cti•••
VIII.
leeti• • 1-9 01 Article U of the Qalter of tile
ft" lor tile .leeti. of ClDUftc:l.l-..
Gl~
of
.pecificalq, . . . . . . 5
_ tier till• •, tllat counc:l.l-. aIIa1l be el.cted at ~. '" tile
ween of tM Cit,. of Lubbock.
• .,.....t ••
CIIIIllieci
Def.....t. haye
Jft_bl,. will c:onti_e to
ftIe.. Cllaltor
.~h
~
, _
.-uti..
Jl'"ial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
til. .
Jl'"ial. . ta tile JUt . .
ceIIIP1,. wit" t ' " lata . . . Jl'"ial. . . . . . .
eland ilJft1id .., . . . . . . .
U1t1lori~.
u.
Put official act. of di.e:r1IIlMti. . . . . . . . . . .
ta ....... IIaft ....
-.1. now find it bpoulble to .we out of the _ . to ..... da til.,. ....
lIl.torically reatricted.
I.
Hhtorically the City Cound.l of Lubbock. , . . . . .... beea ......, r ....
t. the a.ed. of Black••
II.
The preatnt . .bera of the City e-cll. . . . . of .... U
ia eM
to wtIlcb Blacka were hi.torically re.t" cted. c:eMt.o t. be
.
to
the need. of Black••
m.
Tile pnaent 81at. of at-larae elem•
. , d.ty
iandi....ly to dilute the yoti... atrelllth of IIlBOl'lt7
.1_.
_en- ......t ••
of
~
,.ple
Unal in tile City of Lubbock. lacludl... .,.d.flc:a1l7 Ilacb. IIiaority
el_u in the City of Lubbock are actul17 &ad IIff.ethel7 JI'K1,udecl f.....r el.cti
....... i
are abe ...... of tile a-rity etIIB1c:
III)' ...,.... .tatiY
......-c at-la.... apt_
flcall7 alacb.
hod. iftc:llldl
a.ction of lonI-ataBdlaI ,.tten. of raclal
la a
. . .a1
to _.rityaeocla.
eoueqll.c17.
ti_ &ad ......
altIIMP
tile
. . . alat. for lIl.ritl•• ia tile Cit, of 1.IIIIIIoclk. T
tile offoeth. . . .
of tile • •ftty ••• i t 1Iftcoutituti..u, dililtod Il)o til
CIIart.r prwrial• • ClIIIIp1aifted of
ripe t •
t i . of tile
_reb.
11I1.
ftallltiff . . . . . . . . .te ,...., otIIer tIIaa til.
_d.al
nUlif
aCIlIIbt
llenia. h t l l . ' 1-9 .f Uticl. U of the CMfter of tile Cit, of LUbock
.... declared illft1ld. dot...... wU1 be ...... tlaenll)o'" wU1 Mt be f ....
.u.u.t. til. _ - . d a t i - . l di1Bi. . of ..-i. .
t. our. . . .., ••c:nti. to
d'-• ..u..... Il)o J1&1Iltlff-iat~
.................. IIf till c1an. Clal,
jIIdlclal nUef eM ......, till. alttlatl_ f.r tile feU"a.........:
(a)
ftle ......-c Cllarter
JIWft..... I'e4ldd.. at-1&JW. elect!. . can only
lie .....~ ... a _jerlty Wit. of till .-utlod elect.... of tile Cit, .f 1.Ilbboc:k'
Witi. . _
(9..,..) (1"6-77
(b)
t.
tlte . . . - _ of .s-.c. Ta.....
a.-t
).
ftWlt
...-..~
ct•• 8tat. AIm. art. 1170
it la ZNt Wl1l1rel, taat
"'''UO\a,
aCAA.J
...........
"V. . . . . _
. . . . . _ _ ....
_.
-
_.J _ . . _ . . _,._.__
...
for an election sy.t. . other t .... an at-larae MtIIod fII elaetl••
uv.
In aC<:ONance with tbe .pplicable ,....till. . of tit. 1aft of tits lIdt"
.U_'.
tla1JItllf.
S~te. of _rica, incllOCIinc 42 U.s.C. 1973 1(.) ... 1_. t .....
are ... titlecl to .......ble
t ... •, .
...-uuc i. tid..
II,.,
present.thea of the cla.... de.cribed • • • Pft1 tltst
_.
tiM! "-ft..
hereof this court order tbat this IIdt be Uti. . . . . . claaa aati
...
r
el.re tbat to the ex1:ent the City Cbarter ot. tbe Cit, ot
....
qodre. tho ••e of oaalti-'>er dbtricta tor tbe ol.cU. of
of tbe
..u . .
Cit, CoIIncil tbat ..ell election prarilll...... _ _ait..iaol•
..oid; decree • conltitlltionall, _tici.t
CoIIncil -.ber. of the City of
conel••i ... of law ....
J1.u tor tbe o1oeei. of CitY
a........; ... 1lIIa&_
rtece. . .ry
to tbe
tlMlJlp of t.ee _
u p _ t i . of tld.a flat _ r
..........t illj_cti_ re.tl'lliJd. . tbe 4ot""'-t•• tWr
ill
~
_
..l C _ . - t and all tbair _ _ 10 otti..
~ci
t ... _ e t i " , My t"rtber -.icipel ol.cU........ tbe
or
S- I.
_~tlltiaol
.l.ctoral . . . . . ..-plaillecl ot berailll djll4le all _ . apiaa tbe 4ot_
4Iftt. inelll4lll& re. . . .bIe .uo.,..,,'. tft.1 rotoia
oay and -11 f"rther order••• tl1la ....... _,
_sA
tra t t .
pri.t.; .nd _ t ...,. and all t.rtber raU.t. at law
pI.btUt..... the cL.aae. they repra_
~
eel. to ........
~
to t t .
or l • •tF, . . tIt_
be OItitlM.
....-cetll1l, . " t t " ,
a-UQuo
_ro
uu.r_UdIIr
T _ - Idto UOi
1DI~
....... r
4t.....,.
tor
t .._
".
1aOI.
=-----
1r"l"-r=:-rLt=...
Till. 18 to certify that. the_cia, of . .tt
a true ud correct
CO" of the abon Ift.t.,..t
,
1977,
""ic. ef
.,.. eacIa paft1 ...
ia tile Ullited kat•• IIdl
attol'ft81 of record bere1ft by clepodtbl the _
1ft ...do,.. properl, aclclre.aed _th -.fficl..t ftnt clau ...... auu..t,
addre••ed a. Coll_as
l
Fred O. a..te.., CitT.tteIM1
J. . . . . . . . . .ter, CitJ trial.tteIUJ
Ioubllock Cit1 Wl
9161
....
Lubbock, I
71401
Tran. D.
DeM1. V.
Tran. D.
Aelt.
JldJill
Ael~
1/ ~.aod.at ••
1507 13th Street
Lubbock, T_. 7t4Ol
aroa-,
ViW. T. Ta1lor
2»6
Lubbock, T_. 7940l
Ubert ......
laOl IIaia Itreet, Nt.
Lu'*-dr, I
7t4Ol
~
Dul.1H . . . .
O.
4030
'Lubbock,
0 lexI .... 79409
r_.
T. . . Oana
1006 13t1l Stnet
Lubbock,
79401
lobe" P. Jandow
SCbool.f . . .
T
1.d11 Wnraity
lou
, r... 7MOt
Iya,
_
Ll~BOCK
DIVISION
I
A. GENE GAINES,
Plaintiff
CIVIL ACTION NO.
CA-5-76-34
I
v.
THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, AND
THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
OF LUBBOCK (ROY BASS,
CAROLYN JORDAN, BILL K:ALISTER,
DIRK WEST, ALAN HENRY),
IN lllEIR CAPACITY AS .lE.IBERS OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF LUBBO<X.
Defendants
I
INTERVENER •S
AMEN~D
COMPLAINT
JURISDICTIOII
1.
This is an action seekins a declaration that the syste. of at-Iarae electiona
for members of the City Council of the City of Lubbock is unconstitutional, and
an injunction restrainina the city official. of the City of LUbbock fro. enforcina
those provisions of the City Charter of the City of LUbbock providina for at-larae
election of members of the City Council.
2.
Jurisdiction is conferred on this court by 28 USC" 1343(3), 1343(4)' 2201, and
42 USC f 1983, and the 14th and 15th
RD,JE W, LS,IJ
3.
amend~nts
PARTIES
A IttA c I<
PEIU.AJ~
to the United States Constitution.
'?
A"U?
•
Plaintiff-intervene~~i. a citizen, taxpayer. and elector of the United State•• the
State of Texas. and the City of Lubbock. Texas. and, a. a qualified voter in the
City of Lubbock. Texas, is entitled to vote for members of the City Council of the
City of Lubbock, Tex...
Plaintiff resides at 1827 E. 1st Place. Lubbock. Tex...
4.
Plaintiff-intervener brinss this action on behalf of herself and on behalf of
"
••Ion•• !
aU Black ..II S,allial••61"...... qualified electors of the City of Lubbock.
Tex... pursuant to Rule 23. Federal Rule. of Civil Procedure.
The cl..s involved
is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
There are questions
of lav or fact common to all members of the class.
The
clai~
of the plaintiff-
intervener are typical of the clai.. of the cl... and ita aembera.
Plaintiff-
intervener viII adequately and fairly protect the interests of the members of the
class.
Defendants have acted. and viII act, on srounds aenerally applicable to all
members of the clas•• thereby lIlakina appropriate final injunctive relief .... corr..pondins declaratory relief with respect to the class a. a whole.
~ques~s
Plaintiff-intervener
that the court determine. under the applicable provisioaa of lule
2'.
Federal Rule. of Civil Procedure. that thia actlon 1.
approprla~e~y "1nC.1naD~.
.. a clas. action. and order that it be aaintained .. a cl... action in accordanc.
with the above allegation. of plaintiff-intervener'. coaplaint.
5.
Defendanta are all citizen. of the United States. State of Texaa, and City of
Lubbock. and redde within aaid city.
6.
Defendant•• Iloy ..... Carolyn Jordan, 8i11 "cAUater, Dirk Vest. and Alan Henry
are the city council_n of the City of Lubbock. State of Tex.., and have their office.
at 916 Tex... Lubbock. Texas.
1.
Thi. action ia brought again.t the above-n...d city council..n (includin. any
auccessora) in their official capacity.
The com-on r.elief aouaht against the defen-
dant. relate. to their carryin. out of tbe election lava of tbe City of Lubbock with
reapect to the election of city council_n:
specifically. their callin. for the
boldin. of election., their certification of tbe reaulta of the elections, their preparatiun of ballot., and their takin. of all other .tep. neceasary for the holding of
.uch election••
CAUSE OF ACTICII
I.
Section. 1-9 of Article IX of the Charter of the City of Lubbock provide for the
electioa of council..a.
Specifically. aection 5 provides. aman. other thinga, that
council_n ahall b. el.cted at lar•• bJ the qualified votera of the City of Lubbock.
Thea. Charter proviai_ are biOllia. oa the defendanta.
Defendant. have coapUed
with th..e provia1_ ia the p..t and pre.wubly will continue to cOllply with thea
until the.. provi.iona are declared invalid by a competent authority.
t. Pat offielal acta of di.crlunation a.ainst .lacb and Spanish auma_d people
i. Lubboek ha.. requir.d tb. . to 11"•.only in certalD geographic areaa of the city
and ha.. caused the. to auff.r auch econoaic deprivatioD that these minority individ-
..ta _
fiM it i8pOSaible to . . . oat of the ar.a. to which tbey were historically
re.trlcted.
10. 8iatoricallJ tbe Cit)' C_cll of Lubbock. Texaa, ba. been unresponsive to the
aeede of Ilacb .... S,ala"
11.
paraoaa.
the ,r••ant .lIbera of th Clt)' CoUDell, _De of whoa Uvea in the areas to
vhic:la Ilacb ... S,ania"
be _rea
12.
.ura~
aura~
par._ vere hiatoricallJ reatricted, continue to
i .. to tbe ..... of Ilacb . . S,aniah .uma..d persona.
The ,r
to dilute the
t aJat•• of at-larae .lectloa of citJ council_D operates invidiously
~ti. . .traa.tb
of at-rltJ .l••ata of the people liVing in the City
of Lubbock. including specifically .Blacks and Spanish surnamed persons.
Minority
elements in the City of Lubbock are actually and effectively precluded fro. ever
electing any representatives who are also members of the -tnority etbnic groups
involved. including specifically Blacks and Spanisb surnamed persons.
The present
at-large system is a reflection of long-standing patterns of racial discrimination
and unresponsiveness to minority needs.
Consequently. although the bare right to
vote exists for minorities in the City of Lubbock. Tex... the effectiveness of the
minority vote is unconstitutionally diluted by the operation of the Charter provisions complained of herein.
13.
Plaintiff has no adequate remedy other tbao the judicial relief sought herein.
Until II 1-9 of Article IX of the Charter of the City of Lubbock are declared iovalid. defendants viii be bound tbereby and viiI not be free to exercise 80y discretion to eliminate the unconstitutional dilution of voting rights suffered by plaintiffintervener and otber members of the clas..
Only judicial relief can remedy this
situation for the followina reasons:
(a)
The present Charter provisions requiring at-larae election can only be
changed by a majority vote of the qualified electors of the City of Lubbock voting
on the question of amendment.
(b)
Tell. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 1170 (Vemon)(1976.:n Supp.).
Recent evenc. have demonstrated that it is aost unlikely that ..-bers of
the City Council and the majority of tbe voters of the City of Lubbock. Texu. will
work towards amendment on the City Charter to provide for an election systea other
than an at-large method of election.
!lELIEr
14.
For the re..ons stated above. plaintiff-intervener respectfully requests that
this court:
(a)
Declare that the present systea of at-large election of members of the
City Council of the City of Lubbock, Tex... is violative of the 14th and 15th _ndments to the United States Constitution;
(b)
Cr~t
a permanent injunction forbiddiog the holdi. of any future elections
for members of the City Council io accordance vith the provision for at-large election oow contained io • S. Article IX. of the City Charter of the City of Lubbock.
Texa;
(c)
Require the defendants to propose a aethod of .lection of .....r. of the
City Council of the City of Lubbock. Tex... under vhicla aedMtr. of the CoUDcil will
represent individual vards or districts vithio the city; aad
(d)
Cunt such otber relief .. tb1e court dee. jut and proper.
Respectfull1 subaitted.
Robert P. Davidow
Attc;me1 for Intervener
School of Law
Texas Tech University
Lubbock. TX 79409
cnnnCATE OF
SERVICE
I bereb1 certify that a cOP1 of the foreaoioa amended complaint was
delivered b1 had to the office of J - . Brewster. Civil Tr1e1 Attorney for tbe
Cit1 of Lubbock. City Han, 916 Texas, Lubbock, Texas, on tbis _ _ da1 of Ma1, 1977.
Robert P. Davidow
LUBBOCK DIVISIOM
A. GENE GAINES.
Plaintiff
I
v.
I
THE CITY OF LUBBOCK. AND
THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
OF LUBBOCK (ROY BASS.
CAROLYN JORDAN. BRlCE
CAMPBELL. DIRK WEST. ALAN HENRY).
IN THEIR CAPACITY AS tlEHBERS OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF LUBB()Q{.
Defendant.
CIVIL ACTIOM NO.
CA-S-76-34
I
INTERVENER'S COMPLAINT
JUJUSDICTIOM
1.
This is an action seekins a declaration that the .y.te. of at-lars. el.ctiona
for members of the City Council of the Cicy of Lubbock i. IIDconatitutional. anel
an injunction restrainins the city official. of the City of Lubbock fro. enforcinl
those provisions of the City Charter of the City of Lubbock providinl for at-lar..
election of members of the City Council.
2.
Jurisdiction is conferred on thl8 court by 28 USC .. 1343(3). 1343(4)' 2201. and
42 USC f 1983. and the 14th and lSth amcndments to the United Stat.. ConatituUon.
P.UlTIES
3.
Plaintiff-intervener i. a citizen. taxpay.r. anel elector of the United Stat••• the
State of Texa•• and the City of Lubbock. Texaa. and. a. a qualifi.d vot.r in the
City of Lubbock. Tex... i. entitled to vote for _ • •r. of the City Council of the
City of Lubbock. Texu.
4.
Plaintiff reaid•• at 1827 I. lat Plac•• Lubbock. T.....
Plaintiff-intervener brinl. this action on behalf of b.r_lf and on behalf of
all Ilack and Spani.b .urnamed qualified elector. of the City of Lubbock.
Texaa. pursuant to Rule 23. Federel ltul•• of Civil Proc.dur..
1a .0 nuaeroua tbat joinder of all _mbers 18 iapracticable.
of 1_ or fact
C-.l
to aU _.er. of the du..
Th. d ... lnvolWid
There are que.tions
The clai_ of the plaintUf-
intervener are typical of the clai_ of the d ... and its ......r..
'laintlff-
interven.r viii adequately and fairly prot.ct th. int.r_t. of th.......n of UIe
d....
Defendant. have acted. and will act. on IroUDde . . .rall, .,pU_l. to all
_lIber. of th. el.... thereby . .iDl appropriate final iDjUilctiYe reU.f
pondinl declaratory relief with re.pect to th. d . . . . . a vbole.
re~·MIat.
aB' c:orr..-
'laiDtlff-lDt.rveoer
that the court deteraine. UDder th. a"llc8bl. provi.ions of lul. 21.
Federal Rule. of Civil Procedure. that thl. action 1.
appropr1a~e~y "1n~~0&D~•
.. a cl... action. and order that it be aaintained .. a cl... action in accordance
with the above allesation. of plaintiff-intervener·. co.plaint.
S.
Defendants are all citizena of the United State•• State of Texu. and City of
Lubbock. and naide within .aid city.
6.
Defenduts. Roy B.... Carolyn Jordan. Bryce ea.pbell. Dirk Weat. and Alan Henry
are the city councU. .n of the City of Lubbock. State of Texu. and have their office.
at 916 Tex... Lubbock. Tex...
7.
Thia action 1& broupt asaiD.t the above-n_d city counciI..n (includins any
.uccessor.) in their official capacity.
The
C~
dant. relatea to their carryins out of the election
respect to the election of city council-.n:
relief soupt asainst the defenl~
of the City of Lubbock with
.pecifically. their callins for the
holdins of elections. their certification of the reault. of the elections. their preparation of ballot., and their taklns of all other .tep. nece.sary for the holdins of
.uch elections.
CAllSI
8.
or
ACTIe-
Sections 1-9 of Article IX of the Charter of the City of Lubbock provide for the
elecUon of COUDCUMil.
Specifically ••ection S providea • .-ons other thins•• that
couacil-.u shall be elected et larse by the qualified voter. of the City of Lubbock.
The.e atarter proviai_ are biDCIiq on tha defend_t..
Defendants have cOllplied
with the.e provi.lons in the past aDd pres-'»ly will continue to comply with thea
UDtll tbase provisions are declared Invalid by a cc.petent authority.
t. 'est official acts of dl.cria1naUon asainat Blacks and Spanish surnamed people
in L_boc:It b _ required th_ to live ,only in certain seosraphic areas of tbe city
and ba. . caused thea to .uffer .uch econoaic deprivation that these minority individuals nOlI find It 1.,os.lIIle to .a.. out of tha areas to which they vere historically
re.trlcted.
10.
Historicall)' the City
needs of Ileeb
11.
1IIIe ,reset
. .lell Ilac"
C~l
,_1811
n
of Lubbock. Texas. bas been unresponsive to the
aun~
per_.
of the City eo_cU. DODe of who. lives iD the areas to
~ sura~
penona were historically restricted. con.inue to
be _rear-I. . to the ..... of Ilacks _d Spaniah suma. .d person••
12.
1IIe ,reset 8)'8t- of at-larse alection of cit)' councUmen operatea inVidiously
to d11.e die _U. . stND.tII of ainorlty aleMilt. of the people liviDg io the City
of Lubbock, including specifically Blacks and Spanisb surns-ed persODS.
Minority
elements in the City of Lubbock are actually and effectively precluded fro. ever
electing any representatives who are also -esbers of the adnority ethnic group.
involved, including specifically Blacks and Spanish .urna..d persons.
The preaent
at-large system is a reflection of long-standing patterna of racial discriadnation
and unresponsiveness to minority needs.
Consequently, althoulh the bare rilht to
vote exists for minorities in the City of
Lubb~ck,
Texas, the effectiveness of the
minority vote is unconstitutionally diluted by the operation of the Charter provisions complained of herein.
lJ.
Plaintiff has no adequate remedy other than the judicial relief souaht herein.
Until II 1-9 of Article IX of t.he Charter of the City of Lubbock are declared invalid. defendant. will be bound thereby and will not be free to exerci.e any discretion to eliminate the unconstitutional dilution of votina riaht••uffered by plaintiffintervener and other meailers of the
cl....
Only judiciel reUef can re_dy this
situation for the following re..ons:
(a)
The present Charter provisions requirina at-larae election can only be
changed by a majority vote of the qualified electors of the City of Lubbock
on the question of amendment.
(b)
votina
Tex. Rav. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 1110 (Vemon)(l976-77 Supp.).
Recent events have de_nstrated that it is _ t unlikely tbat "'er. of
the City Council and the majority of the voters of the City of Lubbock, TeXM, will
work towards amend-ent on the City Charter to provide for aD electioa .yst. . other
than an at-large method of election.
IELlE'
14.
For the reasons .tated above, plaintiff-intervener re.pectfully reque.ts that
thi. court:
(.)
Dec:lare tbat the present .y.t. . of at-larae election of . . . .r. of the
City Council of the City of Lubbock, TeXM, i. violatiw of the l4tb and 15th _ d ..nt. to the ODited State. Constitution;
(b)
Crant a perMJlent injunction forbiddina the holdi. of 8DJ future
electi~
for "'er. of tbe City Council in accordance with the provi.ion for at-larae eleetion now containad in I S, Artic:le II, of the City Charter of the City of Lubbock,
Texas;
(c)
hquire the def.daDU to propo.e a ..thod of election of .....r. of tM
City CoIO;.dl ~f the City of Lubbock, TeXM, _der which • __ n of the Co_cil will
repre. .t individual warda or di.trict. within the city; aIld
(d)
Graot .uch otber relief aa tbia court dee. jut and proper.
Respectfully .Ubsdtted.
Robert P. Davidow
Attorney for Intervener
Schoo] of Law
Texas Tech Univer.ity
Lubbock. TX 79409
CERTInCATE
or
SERVICE
I bereby certify that a copy of the foreaoina
~tiOD
and coaplaint waa
delivered by hand to the offic. of J .... Brev.ter. Civil Trial Attorney for the
City of Lubbock. City Han. 916 T.xas. Lubbock. T.....
OD
Robert P. Davidow
tbili __
day of Hay. 1977.
UhITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
I
A. GENE GAINES,
I
Plaintiff,
VS.
I
TIiE CITY OF LUBBOCK, AND THE MAYOR
AND CITY COUNCI L OF SAID CITY, ROY
BASS, CAROLYN JORDAN, BRICE CAMPBELL,
DIRK WEST, ALAN HENRY, ALL IN TIiEIR
CAPACITY AS MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF LUBBOCK,
I
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION
NO.
CA-S-76-34
I
I
I
ORIGINAL ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, CITY OF LUBBOCK, TEXAS, ET AL
TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED CCJGlLAINf
TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:
NOW COMES the City of Lubbock, Texas, a Ime Rule tlanicipal Corpor.tion,
and the Mayor and City Council of s.id City, Roy Jass, Carolyn Jordan,
arice
Campbell, Dirk West, Alan Henry, .11 in their c.pacity .s ..-bers of the City
Council of Lubbock, Defendants in tile above-styled and nuaberecl cause and uke
and file this their Orilinal Answer to Pl.intiff's First
~ecI
Ca.pl.int filed
herein by A. Gene Gaines, Pl.intiff, and for sucb Orl.lnal Answer would sbow the
Court:
FIRST DEFENSE
Defendants except to Pl.intiff's First
~ed
Ca.pl.int in Para.rapb VI
wherein Pl.intiff .tte.pts to ca.bine the bl.ck popul.tion and the Mexican
popul.tion into tlfO cl.sses.
He
~lcaa
has, in tbe next sentence above, pl_ that each
is • distinct cl.ss, which is identifi.ble, and then without any explanatory
p1eadin" .tte.pts to ca.bine tbese tlfO .roups into. third cl....
Def.-daat i.
wholly unable to understand or reply to Pl.intiff's pleadi.. and reque.t. that thi•
• rea of Pl.intiff's pleadi.. be stricken.
SECOND DEFENSE
Defeaclants speci.lly except to Pl.intiff'. Plr.t ....... CcIlIplalat.
Para.rapb VI, wherein Pl.intiff state. that the black popul.tiOil . . Mlaic:aa
~ican
popul.tion .11.... clas.e. "suffer frOll
c~
&dYer...... dl.tlllCt
that Plaintiff wholly fails to advise Defendant of specifics with reference to
the actual co.plaints.
Without such inforaation, Defendants cannot understand
nor respond to Plaintiff's pleading and thus request that this area of
Plaintiff~s
pleading be stricken.
ntIRD DEFENSE
Defendants specially except to Plaintiff's First
~ed
ea.plaint
Paragraph VI wherein Plaintiff states that the black population and Mexican
~erican
population alleged classes have "historically suffered fro. and continue
to suffer frOll the results and effects of invidious discri.ination and treauent
in the fields of education,
~lor-ent,
health, politics,
econoaic~,
and other
si.ilar govern-ental functions, duties, and responsibilities" for the reason
that Plaintiff aerely sets forth a general description of an alleged state of
affairs without pleadings to substantiate the general accusation.
These pleadings
present Defendants with a situation which is untenable and Defendants cannot
reply to such because of the vague, unclear representations of Plaintiff.
Defendants request that these allegations be stricken.
FOURnt DEFENSE
Defendants specially except to Plaintiff's First
~nded
Ca-plaint,
Paragraph VI. in that it fails to state a cause of action for which relief can be
granted in that Plaintiff's class is not entitled as a utter of law to have a
.inority City Council ..-ber.
Even if ..-bers of Plaintiff's class were evenly
distributed throughout the City. they would be unable as a group to elect a
City Council .-ber because they do not cCl8prise _re than half of the voters of
the City.
Accordi...ly. tile City Council . . . .rs would be the _ . and there
could be no aU.ptiOll tbat the anority ..-bers were not fairly represented
because none of the eo..c:il
Of _ieh Special BaceptiOll. Def
rs r.d.... in a particUlar leoaraphical area.
ts pray
J~~t
of this Court.
PlP1H DEFENSE
Def.....ts specially deay the allegations in Plaintiff's First
~ended
ColIplalat. PuqnpIa VIla that Plaintiff is not denied the rilht of due process or
.....1 protec:tlOll of tile 1. . . . . guaraateed by the 14th AMndaent of the U.S.
CoutltutlOll by .., actl. . of Defeadants cCl8plained of herein.
-2-
Defendants specially deny the allegations in Plaintiff's First Amended
Co~plaint.
Paragraph VI that certain provisions of the Charter of the City of
Lubbock and statutes implementing the aforesaid Charter provisions are violative
of the U. S.
Constitution.
SEVEN11I DEFENSE
Defendants specially deny the allegations in Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint. Paragraph VI that the City COllOCil or other Defendants are responsible
for the existence of any segregat~l
of the residents of such areas.
geographical areas or the econoaic situations
Furtheraore, it is specially denied that the existence
of any such segregated geographical areas or the econaaic situation of the residents
therein prevents said residents from movina fraa such areas.
Furtheraore, Defen-
dants deny that elected aembers of the City Council do not represent the interest of
members of the aforementioned areas since lIone of thea live in saiel area.
Further-
more. Defendants deny that the "at large" system established by the Charter is
arbitrary or capricious, illogical, unreasonable, or in violation of the'l4th
Aaendaent of the U.S. Constitution.
EIGH11I DEFENSE
Defendant~
specially except to Plaintiff's ParaJraph VII
i~
that
Plaintiff does not adequately define the liaitations of certain geo,raphical
areas referred to therein with sufficient eletail and clarity to allow Def.ndants
to prepare an adequate defense to allegations incorporating saiel ter-dnololY.
Specifically, Plaintiff cOlplains that City Council ...bers do not resiele in
"said areas", without elefining the boundaries of "saiel areas".
Of which
Special Exception, Defendants pray Judpent of this Court.
NIN11I DEFENSE
Defendants specially eleny the allegations in Plaintiff's Pirst
~
CoIplaint, Paralraph VII, in that Plaintiff is not denied the rilht of due process
or equal protection of the laws as auarantHcl by the 14th
~t
of tM U.S.
ConstitutiOn by any actions of Defendants cOIplained of herein.
TEJmt IlEPENSE
Defendants specially deny the allelations in Plaintiff's Pirst
~
CoIplaint, Paragraph VII, that certain prcwisiou of the Charter of the City of
Lubbock and statutes i ...l .....ting the aforesaiel Charter prcwisi. . are violatift
of the U.S. Constitution.
-3-
----..------ -r------,
Complaint. Paragraph VII that the City Councilor other Defendants are responsible
for the existence of any segregated geographical areas or the econoaic situation
Furthe~re.
of the residents of such areas.
it is specially denied that the
existence of any such segregated geographical areas or the
eco~ic
situation of
the residents therein prevents said residents froa 80ving froa such areas.
Furthe~re.
Defendants deny that elected ae.bers of the City Council do not
represent the interest of ae.bers of the aforeaentioned areas since none of thea
live in said area.
Furthe~re.
Defendants deny that the "at large" syste.
established by the Charter is arbitrary or capricious. illogical. unreasonable
or in violation of the
l~th
Aaendaent of the U.S. Constitution.
'nfELF11I DEFENSE
Defendants specially except to Plaintiff's First Allended eo.plaint.
Paragraph Vllt. where. Plaintiff pleads utilizing the foUowing language. "longstanding patterns of racial eliscriaination and unresponsiveness to ainority needs"
for the reason that Plaintiff' wholly fail. to uke Defendants aware of what is
. .ant or what is referred to by this language in that no pattern
or ele.cription whatsoever is .et forth in the pleacling..
of any nature
For this reason.
Defendant. are wholly unable to uncler.tand or re.pond to Plaintiff's pleadings
ancl would a.1t that this arM be .triclten.
11I1RTEENIH DEFENSE
Defendant. specially deny the alle..tions in Plaintiff's First Mended
ColIplaint. ParqrapIl VIII. that certain provisions of the Charter of the City of
Lubboclt ancl .tatute. bpl_ting the afore.aiel Charter provisions are violative
of the U.S. CoutitutiOll.
FOlIlTDJI'IH DEFENSE
Def.....t. specially d.., the alle. .tion. in Plaintiff's First Mended
ColIplaiat, PuqnpIl VIII, that Def......ts will DOt. without juclicial order. aaencI
certaia ChUter prewisi. . . . . 1...
••
h
~ereuDCler
at
10M
future tiM when such
lit - - . . He. ....., to protect tM right. of the voting puhlic.
F1F1U11'111 DEPIINSE
Def~.
specially dear the alleaation. in Plaintiff's First AIlendea
ColIplaillt, PuqnpIl'YIII t _ tM't 1
tM
wtiltllt~ of
.., IIiIIorUy poap
-4-
" . , . t . dilutes and _Ites ineffective
the 14th AIlenclaent of the U.S.
constitutionally protected rights.
SIXTEENTH DEFENSE
Defendants specially deny the allegations in Plaintiff's First
~nded
Complaint. Paragraph VIII that the City Councilor other Defendants are responsible
for the existence of any segregated geographical areas or the econoaic situations
of the residents of such areas.
Furthe~re,
it is specially denied that the exis-
tence of any such segregated geoaraphical areas or the econoaic situation of the
residents therein prevents said residents froa -aving fraa such areas.
Further-
more. Defendants deny that elected .eabers of the City Council do not represent
the interest of members of the aforOllentioned areas since none of th. live in said
area.
Furthermore. Defendants deny that the "at large" syst. established by the
Charter is arbitrary or capricious. illogical, unreasonable, or in violation of
the 14th
~en~nt
of the
u.s.
Constitution.
SEVErmlEN1H DEFENSE
Defendants specially deny the allegations in Plaintiff's First
~ed
Cc.plaint. Paraaraph VIII in that it is not apparent that Plaintiff has not
received representative governaent by the elected City COUncil.
EIGHl'EEN1H DEFENSE
Defendants specially except to Plaintiff's First
Paraaraph IX, wherein Pl_intiff states that he
.~
~ed
Ca.plaint,
no adequate r..edy other thaa
judicial relief souaht herein", when in truth and in fact, Plaintiffs have the
re.edy of a City Charter revision election to effect Plaintiffs' d.sired chan••
in the charter for the City and its electoral syst••
NIrmlEN1H DEFENSE
Defendants specially except to Plaintiff's First
~ed
eo.plaint,
Par.aph IX in that Plaintiff has a.itted facts contrary to the buis of his
jurisdiction in that he states "A judicial deer.. is the only
~y
availabl.. • ."
followed tHereaft.r by a.itti", that the City Charter . y be redrafted for adoption
upon 2/3 vote of the Council
.-bel'S
or upon petition by tea percent of tIM voters
of said City.
'nfENTIE1H DEFENSE
Defendants specially deny the allegations in Plaiatiff's 'irst ......
cc.plaiat. 'araaraph IX that Defendants will not, without judicial order, .....
-5-
TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE
Defendants specially deny the allegations in Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint, Paragraph IX that the "at large" syste. dilutes and ukes ineffective
the voting strength of any minority group under the 14th
Constitution.
~endlDent
of the U. S.
Furthel'llOre, the "at large" syst_ was not designed to discriminate
against certain geographic areas or classes vf persons or to deny th_ any constitutionally protected rights.
TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE
Defendants specially deny the allegations in Plaintiff's First
~ended
Co.plaint, Paragraph IX that the City Councilor other Defendants are responsible
for the existence of any segregated geographical areas or the econoaic situations
of the residents of such areas.
Furthermore, it is specially denied that the
existence of any such selregated geographical areas or the econoaic situation of the
residents therein prevents said residents frca .evin, frca such areas •. Furthermore,
Defendants deny that elected ...bers of the City Council do not represent the
interest of ..-ben of the afor_ntioned areas since none of th_ live in said
areas.
Furthermore, Defendants deny that the "at larl." syst_ established by the
Charter is arbitrary or capricious, illo,ical, unreasonable, or in violation of
the 14th
~t
of the
u.s.
COnstitution.
'IWEJm'- 'I1IIRD DEFENSE
Def.....ts ,enerally deny the allelations contained in Plaintiff's
First AMndeci Coaplaillt and the aUelations of fact and conclusions of law
contained throuPOut ..id First AMndecI CoIIplaint and prayer for relief and
d..-nd strict proof thereof.
"spectfUlly subaittecl,
FlED O. SEJmilt, JR.
City Attorney
P. O. loa 2000
Lubbock .. T..., 7t457
Denais •• McGill
DAVIS D. . . . .1'011 , ASSOCIATES
1507 lStia Stnet
Lubbock, T.... 7t401
-6-
This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and
foregoing Original Answer of Defendant, City of Lubbock, Texas, Et AI, to
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, was this
-ll-~y of~~~77, served
upon Plaintiffs herein by mailing same to their attorneys, Willis T. Taylor,
2206 Broadway, Lubbock, Texas, Albert Perez, Court Place, Lubbock, Texas, Daniel H.
Benson, P. O. Box 4030, Lubbock, Texas, and Toaas Garza, 1006 13th Street,
Lubbock, Texas, and was served upon Intervenor herein by mailing S&De to her
attorney of record, Robert P. Davidow, School or Law, Texas Tech University,
Lubbock, Texas
79409.
OF COUNSEL
-7-
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A. GENE GAINES,
GONZALO GARZA, and
JUAN ANTONIO REYBS
Plaintiffs
vs.
THE CITY OF LUBBOCK,
LUBBOCK MAYOR, ROY
BASS, AND LUBBOCK
CITY COUNCIL HEMBERS,
CIVIL ACTION
NO. CA-5-76-34
I
CAROLYN JORDAN,
DIRK WEST,
BILL McALISTER, and
ALAN HENRY
I
I
I
I
I
Defendant.
rIRST AMBHDBD COMPLAINT
I
Plaintiff. bring tbi. action pur.uant to 42 U.S.C. Sectien.
1'71, 1'73, 1"3, aDd 1'"
to redre•• a denial under color of
1. . of rigbt., privilege. and t..uDitie• •ecured to the plain-
tiff. aDd gArateed to thea by the rourteenth, rifteenth,
lIifteteenth, ad '1'Wenty-Sixth
of the United State..
~ndMnt.
to the Con.titution
Plaintiff• •eek a declaratory
jud~nt
that tho. . provi.ion. of the Charter of the City of Lubbock,
'feu. pertainiDCJ to the election of City Council .-bers, a.
iJlpl_tH and followed by the defendants in municipal electioa. ax. in violatioa of the UnitH State. Con.titution.
aetioa also seeka a
pe~t
Thi.
injunction probibiting the ap-
plicatloa, iJlpl..-ntatlon aDd enforee.ent of tho.e provisions
of the Cbarter of the City of Lubbock, 'feu. pertaining to the
election of City council ..-ber. in so far a. such provisions
OODatltute a clea1al to plaintiff. of those
and
~ltl_
·.ta~
88CNrecl to
of a.erlca.
~
righ~.,
'privileges
by the COn.titution of th. United
the provision. of 28 U.S.C. Section. 1343(3), 1343(4): 28
U.S.C. 2201 and 2202: and the provi.ion. of 42 U.S.C. Section.
1971, 1973, 1983, and 1988.
The Constitution of the United
States of America confer. juri.diction upon this court through
the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-Sixth Admendments to that Constitution.
III
Plaintiff A. GENE GAINES is a black citizen, tax payer and
elector of the United State., the Stat. of Texa., and the City
of Lubbock, Texa., and a. a qualified voter in the City of
Lubbock, Texa. i. entitled to vote for member of the City
Council of the City of Lubbock, Texa..
Plaintiff., GONIALO
GARZA and JUAN ANTONIO REYES, are citizen. of Mexican-American
descent, tax payer. and .lector. of the United States, the
State of Tex•• , and the City of Lubbock, T.xa., and a. qualified
vot.rs in the City of Lubbock, T.xa. are .ntitled to vote for
members of the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Tea••
IV
The defendant., ROY BASS, CAROLYN JORDAH, DIRK WBST, ALMI
HENRY, and BILL McALISTER, are the Mayor and other -a-r. of
the Lubbock City Council.
Th. City of Lubbock i. a .unicipality
organized and exi.ting under law of the State of T.xa. and operati~g
in accordanc. witb the Chart.r of th. City of Lubbock.
V
Plaintiff. bring thi. action on behalf of tb....lv•• and
on behalf of
all
oth.r person• •imilarly situated a. qualified
.lector. of tb. City of Lubbock, T.xa., pur.uant to Rul. 23 of
th. Fed.ral Rul•• of Civil Procedur..
80
'l'be cla•• involved is
numerous that joinder of all -a-r. i. impractical.
are qu••tion. of law and/or fact
cl....
~ft
There
to all -..ber. of the
'l'be clat-a of the pl.intiff. are typical of the cla~
the cla...
Def.ndant. have act.d, and will act on ground.
g.n.rally applicabl. to all member. of the cla.. thereby making
appropriate final injunctiv. r.li.f and corr••ponding d.claratory
r.li.f with re.pect to the cla•• a. a whole.
qu••t the Court to
d.t.~in.
Plaintiff. re-
und.r the applicabl. provi.ion.
of Rul. 23 of the Ped.ral Rul•• of Civil Procedure that this
action i. appropriate for being maintain.d a. a cla.. action
and to order that it be . .intained a. a cla•• action in accordanc. with the above allegation. of plaintiff.' complaint.
VI
Th. total population of the City of Lubbock, Texa. i. approximat.ly 149,101.
Plaintiff. all.g. that the black pop-
ulation of the City of Lubbock, T.xa. i. compo••d of approximat.ly
10,912 ..-ber. of the total population of the city.
ican-~rican
The Mex-
and/or Spani.h-.urna.ed population of the City
of Lubbock, T.xa. i.
c~.ed
of approximately 23,883 member.
of the total population of the city.
the Mexican-A8erican and/or
Th. black population and
Spani.b-.ur~ population
of the
City of Lubbock, "exa. is each a di.tinct cla•• or group which
i. culturally identifiable by virtu. of languag., cu.toaa, bi.tory, pby.ical characteri.tic., and other identifiable attribute••
The COIIbinatiOD of the.. two cl....., the black population and
the llexican-A8edcan altl4/or Spanisb-.urn-.d population, con.titute. a larver, DOD-wbite or non-Anglo cla•• , and this larger
aon-wbite or noa-Anglo cl••• i. a . .jor, r.cially and culturally
identifiable vrouP or cla•• within the g.n.ral or total population, a....11 .. vltb1n the voting population of the City
of
Lullboak,.......
B610h of the.e two .ub-cla•••• , a. well as
the larver COIIblae4 01... -.de up of the two .ub-cla.s•• ,
f~ ~,
.uffe~.
""'ru, and distinct probl... and disadvantl'g•• ,
1ft the fie148 of edaoatlon, .-plor-ent, healtb, politics, eco-
social, legal, economlc, political, educational and other wid.spread and prevalent re.triction., cu.to.. , tradition., bia•••
and prejudice. exi.ting in the City of Lubbock, the cl•••••
of citizens described above have historically .uffered fraand continue to .uff.r fro. the re.ult. and .ff.ct. of invidious
de.crimination and treatment in the field. of education,
e~loy­
ment, health, politic., .conomics, and oth.r similar governmental function., dutie., and re.pon.ibilitie..
A. one r ••ult
these minority population group. in the City of Lubbock, Texa.
generally reside in area. of the the city characterized by
high relative d.n.ity of population, • high proportion of .ub.tandard housing, a high proportion of
un.-plo~nt,
generally characteri.tic low f..tly income.
and a
Becau.e of the
situation pre.ently .xi.ting in the City of Lubbock, which h••
been fostered by the
gover~nt.l
tr.dition. and hi.tory of
the City of Lubbock, and bec.u•• of the g.neral qu.lity of
life experienced both by the bl.ck popul.tion and the MexicanAllertcan pof\ulation of the city of Lubbock th... group. or
cla••e. have intere.t. in
~n
in .ub.tantiv. legi.l.tion to
re.olve the many probl... be••tting th••• popul.tion group••
Th••• ainority group. have the right to .x.rci•• their true
full force and effect on the
~nation
and .lection of -..bel'.
of the City Council of Lubbock, Tex•• and they h.ve • ri9ht,
uncleI' the Con.titution of the United State. of AMdca, not to
have ••id force and effect cancelled, diluted, or ainiaiaed bf
an .lection
8C~
th.t oper.te. in an uncon.titution.lly in-
vidiou. and di.criainatory -.nn.r.
'1'he
election provi.ion.
of the Charter of the CUy of Lubbock, '1'exa. viol.te the Pourteenth AdMndIIeftt of the COnstitution of the United St.te.
because the .t-large .y.t_ .anctioned ther.in dilute. and
lUke. ineffective the voter .trength of the ainodty c1.....
purpo.eful in it. original concept and wa. de.igned to diacriminate, and in the alternative doe. di.criminate, again.t certain geographic area. and cla.... of per.on. who re.ide in
tho•• area. and, thu.ly, denies to tho.e people the equal
protection of the law. guaranteed to all re.ident. and citi.en.
of the City of Lubbock, Texa. by the United State. Con.titution.
VII
The -at-large- .y.tem of electing Council Member., and
the de facto .egregated geographical area., demon.trate pre.ent effect. of pa.t di.criminatory practic•• by the City
Council of the City of Lubbock and it. predece••ors.
Pa.t
practice., both de jure and de facto, requiring ainoritie. to
live in certain geographic area. bave placed the.e minority
group. in an econoaic .ituation which make. it impractical
for them to 8Ove.
The re.ulting repre.entation by City
Council ..-ber. i. not constitutionally adequate a. to the.e
ainoritie. nor ha. it ever been con.titutionally adequate.
Thia i. due, in part, to the fact that none of the City Council
.-bar. live in the are.. deacribed.
The -at-large- election
syatem eatabli.bed by the Charter of the City of Lubbock i.
arbitrary and capricioua and is not baaed upon any logical or
reaSOftable foraula nor i. it based upon legitimate governmental
intensta.
VIII
Reflection upon the _tbocI of eleet:in9 aemben of the
Lubbock City Council at-large, showa plainly that the end
result is to inYidioualy uniahe, dilute, and cancel the true
wot1n9 atreDgth of a1Dority eleaenta of the people living in
the City of. Lubbock, includiDg specifically blacks and Mex-
ieaa-Aaericaaa aad/or lpaDiab-aarn.-.d citi.ens.
e~ta
Minority
ill the City of Lubbock are tbua actually and effect-
i . .1y precluded fna electiav any representative. who are al.o
...e.en
of the aiDorU:y etbDic groupa involved.
Thet'e h a
patterns of racial discrimination and unre.pon.iven... to
minority needs.
con.equently, although the bar. right to
vote exi.ts for minorities in the City of Lubbock, T.xa.,
the effectiveness of the minority vote is unconstitutionally
diminished or diluted by the operation of the Charter provisions complained of herein.
IX
Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy other than the judicial
relief sought herein.
The uncon.titutional condition.
CQG-
plained of preclude the adoption of remedial charter provi.ion.
by the electorate and both pre.ent and future member. of the
City Council of Lubbock, Texa..
Thu., the pre.ent .cheme of
election of member. of the Lubbock City Council i. uncon.titutional a. it fail. to e.tabli.h re.idential requir...nt. for
Council Member.
.0
a. to di.tribut. repr•••ntation equally
throughout the re.pectiv. area. of the City of Lubbock.
Accordingly, the purpo•• and the eff.ct of the el.ctoral .ch...
i. without any legitimate or compelling gov.rnmental intere.t
and arbitrarily and capriciou.ly cancel., dilut•• , and ainimiz.. the force and effect of the voting .tr.ngth of plaintiff.
and the cla•••• which th.y r.pr••ent.
Thi• •lection .cb... ,
th.refor., violat•• the right guaranteed to the.e plaintiff.,
the cla••• ~ th.y r.pr•••nt, and all citi••n. to the equal prot.ction of the la.. and their right to vote pur.uant to the
Fourteenth, Pifteenth, Nineteenth, and TWenty-Sixth Adaendaent.
to the Con.titution of the United State. of Aaerica.
X
In accordance with the applicabl. provi.ion. of the lava
of the United Stat•• of Aaerica, including 42 U.S.C. 19731(e)
and 1988, the.. plaintiff. are entitled to reasonable attorney'.
fee. upon prevailing in this cau...
litigat.d a. a cla.s action, declare that to the ext.nt the
City Charter of th. City of Lubbock, T.xa. requir•• th. u•• of
multi-...ber di.trict. for the election of member. of th. City
Council that .uch election provi.ion. are unconstitutional,
null and void' decree a con.titutionally .uffici.nt plan for
th• •lection of City Council aeaber. of the City of Lubbock,
aak. what.ver finding. of fact and conclu.ion. of law ar.
nec•••ary to the implementation of thi. plan, ent.r a peraan.nt
injunction re.training the defendant., their agent. and .-ploye.. in Municipal Government and all their .ucce••or. in office
or employment, frca conducting any further municipal election.
und.r the uncon.titutional el.ctoral .che. .
~lained
of
h.r.in, adjudge all co.t. again.t the defendant. including
r.a.onable attorney'. f ... , retain jurisdiction to r.nd.r any
and all furth.r ord.r. a. thi. court aay from time to
t~
d... appropriate, and grant any and all further relief, at
law or in equity, a. th••• plaintiff. and th. cla•••• th.y
r.pr...nt aay be .ntitled.
Re.pectfully .ubaitted,
WILLIS T. TAYLOR
2206 Broadway
Lubbock, Texa.
79401
ALURT PEREZ
Court Place
Lubbock, T.xa.
79401
DAIIIEL B. BENSON
P.O. Box 4030
Lubbock, T.xa. 79409
'1'OHAS GARZA
1006
3th Street
Texa. 79401
~~~k,
WBB<X:~
DIVIBIQf
I
A. GENE GAINES
Plaintiff
I
VS.
CIVIL JlCTIQf
1I0·C'-$-74-I'
F':·I.. J
'!HE CITY OF WBIlX%, AND
THE MAY~ AND CITY COUNCIL
OF SA.ID CITY, ROY BASS,
CAROLYN JORDAN. BRICE
CAMPBELL, DIRX WEst, ALAN HENR'l,
ALL III '.DiEIR CAPJlCI'l'Y' AS .JEERS
OF THE CrlY COUNCIL OF WB8<X:~
Defendants
I
41-'-7'
CCllPLAINT
TO 'DIE HafCRABLE JUDGE OF SA.ID COORT:
This is an action wherein Plaintiff seeks relief
consisting of interlocutory or perJlllnent injunctions
restraininq the enforcement, operation, or execution of
the Charter and the Code of City Ordinances of the
City of Lubbock, Texas,
~
restraining the actions of
city officials in the enforc...nt or execution of such
Charter and Code of City Ordinance..
'Dlerefore, Plaintiff
is requesting herein the conyening of a thr. . judge.
district court to qrant such relief aa prodded under
28
U~
Secs.
2281 et seq.
I.
The jurisdiction of this Court and Plaintiffa r1qht
to brinq this action are found under the Ciyil Rights
Act, 42
U~
Secs. 1983, 1988.
jurisdiction under 28
U~
'Dlla Court has additional
Sec. 1343.
Relief hereunder
i. further souqht pursuant to the Federal. Declaratory
Judgaent Act, 28
U~
Secs. 2201, 2202.
II.
Plaintiff 1a a citieen, taxpa,.r, and elector of
the United State., the State of Tea., and the City of
Lullbock, T. . ., and a. a .-litied yoter in the Cit)"
of babboct, 18 entitled to Yote for
Council of
whbock.
~r.
.
of the Cit)"
Plaintiff reside. at 2829 . . .t
Auburn, I-ullbock, Texa••
Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf
and on behalf of all other persons, citizens, taxpayers,
and Yoters in the City of Lubbock who are st.ilarly
situated.
IV.
Defendants are all citizens of the United states,
State of Texas, City of Lubbock and reside within said
city.
V.
Defendants, Roy eass, Carolyn Jordan, Brice
Campbell, Dirk West, and Alan Henry are the duly elected,
and acting City Councilmen of the City of Lubbock,
state of Texas, with their offices at 916 Texas, Lubbock,
Texas, and are charged to set up election precincts,
prOYide election judges, C4J\yass the Yote, certify
cendidat~s
for the general election, certify candidates
elected at the general election and perfora official
functions in .connection with any city election for
city councilMn.
VI.
This action is brought against the above-named
city councilMn in their representatiYe capacities,
including any successor. to such officel positions.
~ ~n
relief sought against all of the defendant.
relate. to th.ir jurisdiction in carring out the election
law. of the City of Lubbock with respect to the election
of city ccuncilMn, calling for the holding of elections
ther.for, the certifying the results of the elections,
the
.t
_tt
ring. of ballot. th.refor and the taking of all
aece.SU'Y for holdiD9 all .lections, a d all
r.lating to the .l.ction of such councilmen.
Plaintiff is denied the right of due process and
equal protection of the laws as 9\laranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
Sta~es.
He brings this action on hie own behalf and
on behalf of all citizens, taxpayers, and qualified
voters of the City of Lubbock, for a declaration of
his rights and a declaration of the inTalidity of those
sections of the Charter of the city and the .tatute.
implementing those section. which apportion the election
of city councilmen.
VIII.
Plaintiff seeks such declaratory and injuncthe
relief as may be proper to assure hi. and all others
similarly situated due proce•• and equal protection of
the laws which are now and haTe been for any year.
denied him by defendants and their predec...or. in
office who haTe complied with certain prOTi.ion. of
the Charter of the City of Lubbock and .tatute. lapl. .enting the aforesald charter prOTieion. vhich are dolatiTe of the Constitution of the United stat. ., all of
which are being particularly set forth hereinafter.
IX.
The Charter of the City of Lubbock proTide. for
the election of councilaen under Article II, Section.
1 thru 9.
~ifically
Section 5 prOTide., _ong
other thing., that the councilaen shall be elected by
the qualified Toters of the City at large.
1he charter
and lava are binding of defendants herein in connection
with the perfonance by th. . of their offical clDtie.
Def.....te
relating to election procedur. . in the city.
baTe in the put cc.plied, and it .aI.t be pre.-cl tat
U... ••
they vill continue to ee-ply, vith the charter JlI'od.ion.
and law. thereoncler until such
I
the JlI'owbiona
shall be declared by a ccapetent authority to be in_lid•
•
_.-
r - - .. - - - - - . -
--
-_.-
---- ---
--
---
---"
-.
-
,
Article IX. Section. 1 thru 9 thereof• •iolate the
Fourteenth Amendment of the Con.titution of the United
State. becau.e the at large .y.tea contained therein
dilute. and makes
block'
ineffect~ve
the voter .trength of
or Any other minority confined to a particular
segment of tho city.
The plan is purposeful and
systematic and de.igned to discriminat. again.t certain
g.ographic area. and cia.... of per.on. and to d.ny
the. the eciual protection of the law. guaranteed to
all people of the City by the Federal Con.titution.
XI.
The-at larg.-.yst. . of electing councilmen and tho
d. facto segregated geographical a,r... d.aonstrate
pr.sent .ffeet. of pa.t discriminatory practice. by
the city council.
This is
.0
because past practice.
requiring black. to Ii. . in certain g.ographic ar..s
ha•• placed black. in such a dire econoaic'.itutation
that it i. t.pos.ible and impracticable for th•• to
The result i. that the elected -.bel'. of the
"JI
city council doJr.pre....t the interest of member. of
mO".
the afor...ntioned ar... since none of them 11ve in
aid ar....
The -at large- e.tablished by the charter
i. arbitrary and capricious and without reference to
any 100ical or r ...onable foraula whate.er and is in
dolatiOll of the Pout....th AaendMnt.
XII.
!be practice ,f the city council r.quiring plaintiff
to
~e OIl
an .... tabl. 18 a denial of the right to
dae proce•• and
br tile
-.-1
protection of the laws as guaranteed
Poutee.th 1Ia1
V.tted state. and
~e
rlPt to . . .oret ballot.
t to the Constitution of tha
ctfically a denial of his
It is apparent froa the foregoing that pla1nt111
and others similarly situated in the City of Lubbock are
governed by a council which is not representative of
the people of the city and that such representation by
succeeding -at large- councilmen conflicts with the
concept of government by consent of the governed and is
contrary to the prevailing philosophy of government
embodied in the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution
of the United States whereby the legislature, in this
case the city council, has the power to _ke law.
only because it has the duty and the power to represent
all the people.
XIV.
Plaintiff has no adequate re. .dy other than the
judicial relief sought her.in.
Until such time a.
Article IX, Section. lthru 9 of the Chart.r of the
Ci ty of Lubbock haa been d.clared in whole or in
peart to be in...alid, d.fendants will be bound th.reby
and are not free to exerci•• any discr.tion to .liainat.
the deprivation suffered by plaintiff..
Only judici.l
relief can J!eJlledy this condition for the following
reasons:
U)
A judicial d.cre. is the only reMdy a....il.bl.
again.t the chart.r pro...ision. in that .n ordinance
for the sulaission of the que.tion, -. .11 •
c~ission
be chosen to fr
aust be pas.ed by two-third
new chart.r,ot. of the council
_lIbera or upon petition of t.n percent of the
qu.lified ...ot.ra of Mid city.
Art. l1&S, V.rnon.
Annot.ted Texas St.tut•••
(2)
nt. city council is controlled .nd doaiMted
by per.ons .l.cted ciUs•••• h.rein aboft noted
who _y be duly .xpect.d to .....rw the .t.tu.
quo which perpetuat•• th.ir doaiMUon•
..
(1)
That this Court take jurisdiction of this .att.rl
tl..t: a ."8'al tiw.. jaelge
t Joe cell.ct
eftl
t. I.....
epel
3381 at .av.r and declar.:
a.
That Articl. IX, Sections 1 thru 9 of the Charter
of the City of Lubbock has deprived and continue. to
deprive plaintiff of liberty and property without due
proceas of law and deprive. plaintiff of equal protection
of the laws-in violation of the Fourteenth Amendaent of
the Constitution of the United Stat•••
b.
That there has been a lonq-e.tabliahed purposeful
and aysteaatic plan embodied in the Charter of the City
of Lubbock, Articl. IX, Section. 1 thru 9 whereby actiye
and progr.saiye at.ps have be.n taken which discriminate
aoainst c.rtain o.ooraphic areas and claaaes of persona,
depriyinq plaintiff and all those .iailarly situated of
liberty and property without due proc••s of law and the
equal prot.ction of the law. in violation of the Fourte.nth Aaendaent of the Constitution of the Unit.d statea.
(2)
'!'bat thb Court grant furth.r relief in accordance
with 28 USC Section 2202 a. follows:
a.
To noUfy the city council that this Court shall
r.tain juri8diction of this cau.. until a new ayatea
of .l.cting city counciL.en and the pr.servation of the
_cr.t ballot he. been dnhed to ...t the requirements
of the Fourteenth Aaendaent of the ConsUtution of the
Uni ted Stat••, and for furth.r
d.t.~tion
~ear1ngs
h.rein as to
of the validity of any new .lection law
•• _y be ....cted bJ the city coucU.
b.
1'0 re.traia .fe"ate
i~iately without
fraa holding a 98neral election
the PDrp0a8 of electing city
-at larve- ayat_.
Oft
notice
April 3, 1916, for
cOQftci~n
utilizinq the
a.
Bbould reta1n
Jurlealc~lon
or tnls cause
un~l~
BUcn
ti.. as the city council of Lubbock, freed froa the
fetters i.posed by charter provisions invalidated by
this court, provides; by enact.ent, such a plan of
electin; councilmen that as viII insure black voters
and others si.ilarly situated, the rights guaranteed
thea by the Constituticn of the United states.
b.
Slould grant such other and further relief as to
this Court My see. just and proper.
x.
GERE GADES
Plaintiff