D I H.
. lJ
EY
B
JTBD STATES COURT or APlP2J~
FOR 1'8
I
CIRCUIT
o.
RIA VBLASQU Z, I
AGUI
,
nd J
behalf of all Black and
of tb City of Abil n ,
NO:Rm~ro, AMELIA AGUI
,
Indivld lly and on
rice oitia
P1aintiffa-A
l1ant
VB.
Of' ABILBNB, T XAS,
• HALL,
, L.D. IL
, J. BRIDGB , A••
J.
DRI
Z, the Mayor nd City CO
of
City of Abi1 n , T x , all in th lr official ca citi••
Dele
Ap
nta-A pell...
a1 frca tb On1te4 ta~. D1 Ulot Court
for th
orthern Di.triet of Tea •
Abi1 n Divi.lon
Gale Patt rllOn
Attorney at
100
in Str t
Port
rtb, Te~. 76102
(8l7) 336-3943
Wil11
L. Garrett
Attorney at La"
.300 Dougla., uit 800
Dalla.,
xa. 75225
(214) 369-1952
FOR
APPBLllAllIT8
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE PIFTH CIRCUIT
Ho. 82-1630
MARIA VELASQOBZ, ISAIAH MORELAND, AMELIA AGUIRRE,
AGUIRRB, and JORH McCOWAN, Indlvidu 11y and on
behalf of all Bl ck and
xlean
ricAn citiz ns
of th City of Abil n , Texa.
Plaintiffs-Appellants
VB.
TI:l£
CI'l'Y
or
,
BXAS,
E. 1tALL,
B. PROCTOR,
L.D. BIL
, J. BRIDGES, A.E. FOGLE, JR.,
and J. ROOUQUBI, til Mayor and City Councilmen of th
K.
R,
City of Abil
, 'lex.. , all in their official c pacitie
De fendanta-Appe11
s
Appeal frc. the Unit d Bt te. District COurt
for tb Morthern Di.trict of Texas
Abilene Division
!SRI
Gale Patterson
Attorney at Law
100 MaiD Str t
ort WOrth, T x.a 76102
(817) 336-3943
Willi
L. Garrett
Attorney at Law
8300 oou91•• , Suite 800
Dallas, Texas 75225
(214) 369-1952
ATTORNEYS
FOR
APPELLANTS
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES
NO. 82-1630
MARIA VELASQUEZ, tal. v. CITY OF ABILENE, TEXAS, et al.
The und r.ign
, couneel of record for Haria Velasquez,
t 41., c rtifi•• that the follovln9 listed
int r •• t in the outcome of thia ca. •
ar
p
rties have an
ae r present tion
e in order that the ~ • of thia Court
y ev lu te
or recuaal pursuant to Loc 1 Rul
po.aibl. diaqualiflcatio
13 (6) (1) •
Maria Ve.laequ •
Iulah NorelaDd
AMli. A9UJ,rre
len
Aguirre
Jobn McCowan
Willi. . L. Garrett
Gale .atterao
ft. City of Abilene, Texa.
Blbert
11
Betty Proctor
tel'
lathy
L. D. Biltoll
JohD 81'1
A.
J
•
• PQ91., Jr.
Carlo Rodrique.
rv y
ca~i11
Guy LaDder.
_ald Clark
~
_
Attorn y of R coreS for
ria Velaaqu z, I . lah Moreland
lia Aqulrr,
n A9uirre, and
John McCowan, Plaintiff.-Appellants.
1
STAT
T REGARDING ORAL ARGUME T
Coun el for Appell nt. represent
in tb
bove c .
th t the ca.
would
h lpful to th
a. tri d ov r a
cript of which i. oont ined i
info~tion
that Or 1 Argument
Court for the reason
riOd of six d ys, th
1,37. PAg
,
tr n -
nc! there is much
contained 1a the .tipul tiona of the part1 s, all
of eich could be of 1nure.t to the Court, but which vas
Uq)O••ible to reduce an4
.~i.e
in the Brief of Appellants,
therefore, Coun.. l beli.".. that the COurt
que.tio
Or 1
y bay
regarding t. e ca.. that co 14 only be an
t.
ii
ny
in
TABLE OF CO T
TS
ITEM
p
C rtific te of Inter . t 4 P rties
State
nt Req rdinq Or 1 Ar
nt
.................................................
2
nt of t.h
Sta
nt of t.h
in th
.
"
.
of Proc
tnq. and Diapo.1tion
Trial Court ............................................
Stat
ftt
SUACIIlr,4
of
ca.
P ota
.............................................
.....................................
................................................
...................................................................
Concluion
3
3
3
7
9
13
...................................................................
40
..........................................................
41
Certificau of
rvic
.................................................
API;leJl4lx II
iv
..........................................
Stat
8111_lrY of the
ii
1
nt of Jurisdiction
of
i
....................................
StAt
COur
E
....................................................
i1i
42
4S
CITATIO S
CASES
PAGES
Ashw nder v. T.V.A.
291 U.S. 288 (1936)
Auaberry v. City of Monroe
13
456 F. SUPP.
33
Bold n v. Citl of Mobil
423 F. Supp. 384
36
Bold n v. City of Mobile
571
36
.60, (w.o. La. 1978)
(W.O. La.
197 )
(5th eire 1971)
eity of Mobile v. Bold
Corder v.
irk.ey
446 U.S. 5S (1980)
604 F. 24 815
(5th Clr. 1,79)
36, 43
14
585 F. 2d 708
(5th eir. 1978)
Cro•• v. Baxter
• 2d 238,
8, 1.,
5, 19,
34, 36, 37
Beurd v. Indian Il1ver SChool Diatrlct
475 I. Supp. 1)50 (bit. t",)
,I) 343 r. qpp. 704
( i.D. fex. 1"2 .ffi~
noa.
Mbite v. R!Ie.ter 412 u.s. '55 (1973)
13
Gr.....
19, 22, 25, 26,
Grave. v. Bame. (II)
36
.
( i.b. fiX. 197.)
Gr
378 P. Supp. 640
t Atlantic , Pacific
supenariiet BqlalPMnt
B n4rix v. Joseph
(5th eire 1977)
co.
~ ~
559 F. 24 1265
Kirk. y v. Board of Superviaor.
5S4 f. 24 139 (5th e1r. 1977)
cert. 4eni 4 434 U.S. 968 (1977)
v
v.
j4~147
36
(1950)
9
12, 14, 36
30, 42
Light v. U. S.
220 U.S. 523 (1911)
Lodge v. Buxton
13
639 F. 2d 1375 (Sth eir. 1981)
t. Dank v. Dredge Gen. G. L.
Nevett v. Sides 571 F. 2d 209 (5th e r.
1978), cert. denied 446 U.S. 951 (1980)
A8sum~tion
Peltier v.
Pariah Polic
eire 1981)
631 F. 2d 21 (St
Pullman-Standard v. Swint
102
s.
u.S. __, 102 S. Ct.
mer. v. Lodq
2 (1982)
Siler
(1909)
T
~
• R. co. 213 u.S. 175
Louisville'
ter. v.
u.
S.
u. •
431
u.
324 (1977)
u. •
333
10
11, IS, 19, 20,
36
Jury
U.S._,
ct. 1781 (1982)
43
364 (1947)
3
10, 11, 12
10, 11, 12, 15,
33
13
10
9
11, 38
11
e.tem COttonol1 co.
lsi (5£6 elr. 1954)
Yelverton v. Dr199
(S.D. Ala. 1974)
r v.
Mc~eith
(5th eIr. 1973)
u.s.
r.
White v.
Z
v. lI04,e.
n
218 P. 2d
755 (1973)
370 P. Supp. 612
485
v
• "d 1297
9
16, 19, 20, 30,
42, 43
15, 16, 17, 19,
20, 32, 35, 43,
45
PAGES
STATUTES
42 U.S.C. 1973
6. 1, 12,
3, 14,
15, 11, 21, 32
42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(h)
10
Ru1
23 (b) (2) F.R.C.P.
3
Ru1
52() P.R.C.P.
7, 8, 14. 18, 19,
31, 37, 39, 40
T x. R v. Ciy. Stat., Art•• 1165-1180
T
x. State Con.t1tution, Art. 11, • c. 5
u.s.
Con.titut1on, 14th, 15th
tao
nat
port,
• 1-417, 97th C 9.
24 •••• , reprinted 1ft u. s. COd.
Cong. , M.
, July,
1,12
vi
3, 35
35
7, 13, 21
8, 14, 15, 16, 29,
31, 32, 33, 35, 42,
43, 44
STATE
T OF
JORISDICTIO
Tri 1 COurt h d juriadiction of th s cas
to 28
u.s.c.
1343(3)
nd (4), upon c ua • of
42 U.S.C. 1971, 1973, 19 3, 1988, and th
lte4 Statea COnatitu.tio.
to
2
U.S.C. 2201, 2202 and
i.
CO rt
• 51,
uant
r
"9 under
XIV and XV
n
lief was sought una r
p.a.c.p.
haa juri diction to h
r the
of 28 U•• c. 1291, in that the deciaion ap
of the
ction
pur
1 by virtue
ia a final 4 ci ion
ite4 States District court for. the North m District of
-r.xaa.
1
STATE
1.
The Trial Court
rred in d
tution I ground.
decid
II.
OF THE ISSUES
iding the ca
n the ca e could h ve properly been
upon .tatutory ,round••
f ct in eccordance with
e 52 (a)
of tbe aiAority voter.' cla
9 R1
Co
Ill.
eo
~
ludecl
13
-'in, d
Trial Court erred 1ft not
Yet
upon the consti-
tail d findings of
.R.C.P. in ita r aolution
UDder 42 U•• C. 1973, the
)4
Act.
U
riolatM the nqu1r
t
ta of
e 52 (a) wb
the adoption of the 1962 City Charter
of illicit r cia!
~ti
tlo.
2
it
8
fr e
37
STAT
OF THE
SE
J.
Statement of th Course of Proc dings and
01 po 1tlon in the Trial Court
Thi • •uit w • til
on
II 1 f of
11 black and
Y ord r of J
y 14, 1981, the
CU'tlfi
a. a cl••• actio
Trial
of
Opinion, i
tb
parti
City Council in Abil n , T xa .
rt 4enmine4 that thl. c se
0
un
r Rul
23(b)(2), F.R.C.P.
court. 41 i .
ac~ion
oti
o.f• •
~~.r4
,
alao fil
xhib1t. of
dat •
•
by Pl i tiff.-Appel1ant.
of API,.al " • fil
U-cro.
it.
on the
of Abi1
Cit
tipu1ate4
cporaUng Stipul tio •
17, 1982
til
ttl
o.
rol.
, on t.h
City
currently
judq..at in f
•
scion
y, 1982 and June, 1982 and by ord r
14 in
tober 22, 1982,
tal.
cl
rican citiz ns in th
xican-
n to th
leet counci
ueeS to
s
11 ftge the at-larg
to c
of Abll
on OCtOb r 15, 19S0
1 va. fil
ce of CornU tion 1
t
0
by
1, 1982.
llant. on Dec
II.
Stat
Abil n , T xa.,
Can tituti
t of the
rul
Fact.
city organia 4
4 r th
nd Art • 1165-11S0, Tex.R v.elv.Stat., which allow.
.uch cities to chaos
b tw en
t-Iarg
3
and
1ngl
IfteJlftber di.tr iet
org 1z
1 ctio
Fram 1890 1892, AId
th
n
a
1ect
l'
t- &1'9 , but
city w s divided into tour single
re e ected £1'
n
lectio
COurt.
city adopt
Th
dopte4 its prea
vid
fo
t
1
Ru • Chart
chart r in 1962.
nt c
01
ith two co
l'
rter provi4
for thr
for a
0
an
Y
titut
01
of the city.
t
r
for
low.r perc
re i . operative 1n Abil
for
ieh proposes a a1
•
city.
co
Ie n-
nd
ntrated in
t...
I' proportion of th ir n
ar vb
ra
They
•
a wtli te dcainat
tt r GoverrUMnt. known locally a
t
, and
lection.
Thel.e CJrcMII~a ar
A
t the time
in 1
within th
loweat .ocio-eccnmlic 91'
Clti~en.
at ggered
t
'.7' of the populatio
12.6.
r89i tel' to vote i
group,
council,
1fl
.. and P elIte
coned.tut.
al
l'
pi ce
jority ftt.e nqair
in th
nd
pro-
which
#
co
th.
t1
ch
n
y
t
ric
911,
wry three
of • Ie«loa 11".
r
Both of thos
Suprem
xa
in
I'
Ii
Alao pzovide4 for an
'I'
In 1895,
purau nt to an At.tornev
r
ita firat
all elected at-l&r9
1'••
d r-
nd
at-la1'ge election of city councilmen.
PI'
y
er di tr eta,
.. 1 ter invalidated by the T
ich
ral' a ruling.
G
892,
n
diat.ricts in 1893 and 1894.
tha
rea
the cit.y
aw c'ty in 1885.
a 9 n ra1
•
ting
C G,
of eand dat a for electlon to Cit
Counei •
The succ s
r
of CBG has b
t
n 92.5
ince
966,
nd
00
nee 1974.
on black nd two
xic n-Americans hav
the City Council since 1973
do in ted slating
that
: non
t
run -.anauec
n
cit
nd nt black or
th t the ftt-large
all 9
Such dilution i. • i4 to b
• at
politica
to
ir
,
n
da, tb
ten
jorit
vicea
vote for 81
tion, an
Furth r, th
vot
ayat
result
in that th
election ar
h v
Ie
8
not
in th
nt of
r
uir
nt,
ee opportunity
diluted.
lftinor1t
in
vat ra
1189
d nial or abridg
political proc
that th
pre
nt at
nt of th ir right to
a leading to nomin tion or
ually open to th 1r p rticlp tion in that they
opportuni ty than other me
partie pat
t enh
, the
uir
nti-aingle shot voting
and madifi d distrlct residency r _uir
for th lr vot a to
fleet. of
urth nne
a larqe votinq diatrict, r
0
of
st te policy
0
continuing
ral and Official racial cS1 erialn tion.
.tructur 1
by th lr lack of
1 ck of r sponsiven s
t.
rticulariz
eaus
favoring multi-...eer di.tricta, and
larc)
to
of e1ectiona unconatitutionally dilutes th ir voting
acc:..a to t.h
9
he whi
n el ct d orio
o ind
0
1 ct d al hough several h v
nority vot ra hav
atrenqth.
th
v r
d
aafull~.
Th
syat
ran prior to 1970.
rican ha.
exlcan-
ft r sponsorship by
one had ever b
9rou~.
be n el c
political process
5
of the
lector te to
nd to e1 ct r pr
8
ntatives
of th ir choie
in violation of the Voting Ri hts
1913.
6
c , 42
.S.C.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGU
thr
-A~llanta,
Plaintiff
Th
9rounda of error:
COD~itutio
upon the
voter , hav
atatutory b ai
Rul
cas
for deci ion
52(a), F.R.C.P. in
ct, 42 U.S.C. 1973, vas not violated: and
Court al.o violated Rule 52(a) in failinq to diseuse th
c:e th t th
vid
r tainift9 the at-Ia
nt va. in part -oti
14
a~
t t
1962 Charter change
ddinq t
and
Court
ajority vote r -
by aft invicUoua racial re 801'1.
Abil
at-l
election sch
t, baa d upon
cion not nolate e1th r the 14th or 15th
1" t1n41D9 that t
r1ty vot rs had failed to prov
direct evidence of cl1.crilliDatozy int nt e1
or in t
eg
a
• detail d fiftding. of tact to au port its d cision
ainority votera' eft. . .i
qul
n
COurt violat
that the Voting Rigbta
(3) th
~nor1ty
the Court erred in decid ng th
(1)
I ground vh
va. &v.llable, (2) th
faillnq to
the
T
..tntenan
of
to prevail under
~e
•
, uc1 t
a99J:e9 te of th
C~
d ha
baai. for l'eli f, til
Voti
ta Act, ra
of reli t upon
the proof
con.tituticmal
der th
as the Court a.. rt
t th
h d .1ao failed
t etors.
The
nority
con.idered th ir atatutory
ation,
r than baaiftq d nlal
d that in any c
,
constitution and the .tatute 1. not identical,
•
S condly, und r th
Court do not
C) RiC)
r ift the inc ption
I~r
voters erg. th t ·tIle
any
Voting Riqht. Act, the findin9
t the -d tail- requir
7
nt of Rul
of t
52(.) in th
two pages of the d ci ion that th Court d voted to
Th
facts to be prov
r
u.s.
Code Congo 'Ad.
July, 1982, pp.206-207.
Th
of diacri
election di triet,
nation, larg
ta, anti-singl
requi~
education,
n
loyae t,
lower
and
Ith, in
The court'. finding
rity acce.a to slating, pr
nation, r eial c
iqn t ctics,
lti-
r districts
Co
arter chang v
t riol t.d
e 52 (a) in
not r eially.cti
41 cusa the II1norlty voters' ext
1a
r
ol41ng that th
Court did
ted.
.ive evid
cernlft9 r cl
ce con-
ee of the atand the.
Por th
un
nt
eo_.
Pina11y,
a re
jority vot
and living cond tion ,
.tate po1iey favoring
c1 arly err
not e
history
1 etion to public off ee, 1 eJt of responaiv ness,
ten
1"2
ew,
ot proviaion , low r minority
. . to polarised voting,
alnority
Court actually found
nority voter regiatration.
ffect. of paat di cr
lssue.
in d in the S nate R port, No.
con
97-417, 97th Cong., 2d Sess.,
hi
nal and
abov
Z'1
r
d
ti
of ttl
, th
lI1nority.
required both
te requ1
ter.
r Rule 52 (a) and
r cr • v, Baxter, 604 P.24 875 (5th eir.1,7').
8
a rt ttl t
t.
STANDARDS Of" REVI ,.,
Th
Trial Court in reaching a decision has sev ra
(1) analysis of th
evid nee to find the facts;
(2) det rm"nation
ppllcable law, and (3) application of th
of the
ks;
t
law to th
facts.
of th
Upon • eh
duU•• , the Appell t
Court applie
dlff r nt standard to c5etemne vhetb r or not th
ba.
~tted
·clearly erroneoua.·
G
SuP!!!!! et !q!1p!!ftt
eo.,
·cl arly erl'OllNO
., vh
·cl
t
although there i. evidence to support
ntl~
evid nc
i. 1 ft with the
333
u.s.
366,395 (1967).
ti 1 " i
tted.
Finding.
to support th
J
th
re
finding.
(2) vb re the
sappre ended the .ffect of the eviel nee J and (3) if,
there is evid n
IthoUCJ
the force
d eft
convinces that til
of tb
v.
A finding i .
• in the rifth Circuit (1) vh r
r y erroneo
Court
340 U.S. 147 (1950).
con ictlOll that a aiatake h.s been
o.s. QrP! '
an v1thOQt.
ov rtumed unle.. they are
t Atlantic' P clfie Tea CO!f!ftY
nvi.wing court on the
eleflftite and f1
U.8. v.
Trial Court
error.
piftdJ.ft98 of fact vll1 not b
it, th
a
credible t
the truth and tb
~
of til
whicb if cr dibl
~
finding Is
.t~ny
would be a
t1Bony consieS red
.0
against th
at nttal,
• a whole
great preponderance
that it doe. not r fleet or r pr
riCJht of th
c:..
9
nt
stern Cotto 011 Co. v.
Hodges, 218
.2d 158, 161 (5th Cir.l954);
Dredge G n. G.L. Gillespie, 663 F.2d 1338 (5th Cir.1981), crt.
u.s. _ ,
den! d
Mix d
~
abl
102 S. Ct. 2263, (1982).
ationa of fact
ar
r vi
St
dard v. Swint,
nd law, and qu s
el arly erroneous
free of th
on
of 1 w
tandard.
Pullm n-
, 102 S.Ct. 1781, 1790 and Footnot
U.S.
19.
finding of
anee of th
int
a.
purpoa a,
-
U.S.
eyat
at-larg
that the Trial Court's
for di.cr
inatory
11 . . ita aubaidiary findings of f ct, are
under the clearly·erroneous at
abl
-
Court hu det nlin
C.S.S
'l'b
dard.
I'
v. Lodge,
ROC] I'
, 102 S.Ct.3272, 3278 (1982).
.
TIle baai. of this c!eunl1Datlon ia in4ieated to be th
pl'lor elecl.ion
n v •
purely f
Pull
1:4, .upra, at 1788-91.
-8
r cent
atian
Tbe
r a fift41ag of ifttentional 4iacraination
~u
tact not so
1 flftcSiDCJ .ubject to
cue vu poraue4 un
42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(h), th
interpretec1 in
there auat
w.e 52(a), or " • an u1t! at
ubject.
~at
tel'.
queation waa not a
he.703(h) of Titl
that ee.. 703
., 431 U.8. 324 (1977)
fincUft9 of act
Standard, aupra, at 1790.
I'
COurt det rain
C)rounda and ttl t auch vaa a
ca. a
vi
1
in~
t to cU.cri
ure flndil\9 of fact.
VII,
•
ant th t
on racial
Put
v.
The Court ape<:ifica 1y noted th t the
xed q eation of 1 " and fact that -in
ay allow an A pe lat
Court to revi
10
th
fact. to.
if
they. tiay
Pul
e 1 qal concept of di crimina ory in
n-Standard, ibid.
etual motiv , not
n.
ft
01 crimin tory int nt the c rn ant
-legal presumpt'on to be dr
n
ram a
"
aupra,
3211.
t
A 01
findiDCJ of in
i . 1ialt
i..
lthou9
ca.
it
r aeU 9 of Pul
fact1
to th
interpretatioD of a c. 703(h).
art. th tach
finding in th
nation i
i.
1
a .txe4
t
finding
0
ation of 1 w and
a1 d finitio
11
RoC} ra,
vote dilution
1 finM 9, indicat.ea th
pur ly fact
th tis, th r
that a
1 diaeriaiD tion to b
tio
int ntiona! diser
Standard would 4i.c108
of discriminatory
intent vhich can b
of prov
t by infer ntial r asoning fro.
facta. Thu , th
R09 r
finding of discrimin
int nt ia, in f ct, b sed upon th
Standard, supr , at 1791:
prea
than
tion to be
~ravn
etual motlv.-
t.~ft.tion
orv
xception
-Di criminatory
nt nt ... i
from a factual showing
Roger.' readin9 of th
fail. to limit Pull
0
1 gal
someth n
n-Standard to its own
Jo.eph, 559, F.2d 1265 (5th eir.197').
less
Pullman-Stand rd
ule 52(a) requ1r a d tailed finding8 of fact.
nece••ary to .upport a r
A
rms.
Hendrix v.
Failure to find facts
ult 1. an error of law.
H ndrix,
aupra, at 1268.
The Court'. failure to
e
tailed finding
undr
h
VotiDCJ Right. Act 1. auch an error of lav t at requlr a a remand.
Pu1~-
r4, .upra, 1791-92.
12
ARGUMENT
I.
The Trial COurt
tutional i ••u
rr d in deciding the c
n the case could hav
v
upon the cons "-
properly been decided upon
statutory ground••
In 1936, Justice
und r wbich Courta
tional que tions.
ve
One
r nd i
UQ~.~
of
~heH
s
riz
ries of rules
th
r straints in p s
ng on con titu-
rules is stated:
Th Court vill not pas. upon a constitutional qu stion
altho h pro r1y pre. ted by the record, if there is
alao pr_ nt 80M other grou.n4 upon which the ca e may
be diaposed of.
us, if • ca•• e n d cid d upon
.ither of two ground., one in9Olvin9
constitution 1
stion, tbe Co~ vill 4 e14. only the 1att r.
r v. T.V.A.
-8 1936
Ttll. rule
In
~e
i1.r v. La
avl1la.
.a. eo.,
pari.h Po1i
are
1
0
to.
J!!X, 638
Supr
this rule of judicial d ei.ion
by the Fifth Circuit in P Itier
.24 21, 22 (5~h eir.l'.l»".
ly thi. rule.
Court
213 U•• 175, 192 (1909) and
Li,ht v. U•• 220 U•• 523, 531 (1911).
follow
ei.ion of th
v. ASSumption
Dlstric~ Court.
Bokerd v. ID41an River SChool Diet.,
475 F.8upp.1350, 1357 (D.C. Del.1979) •
• Tri.l Court In this ca• ., In a 31 paC)
1••• tho 2 pag •
voter.
to
deci.ion, allocat
the .tatutory elaia ••••rted. by th
violated the Voting
that tll4 Abilene at large election .yst
Right. Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973, and d voted
tional e1 i
that th
nts to th
u.s.
at 1 rq
sy.t
Constitution.
13
OV
r 21 page
viol t
ainority
th
to the constitu14th and 15th
The Court att
th
t tutory elaim by aaa rting that th
ia i4 ntic 1
4
pted to ju tify such
c. p.114.
hortshr'
h n 1 n
an lys's uode
This is an error
0
w
clai
bo h
s wil
0
5
b
natr ted in Section I I belo
II.
Th
fac~
the
rial Court err d in not
n accordance with
lnority vat ra cl
ul
king d ta led finding
0
52(a) F.R.C.P. in its re olution of
under 42 U.S.C. 1973, Th
Voting Rights
Act.
'J'be Pifth Circuit baa baeft
-ate
ery
tailed fiDding. of f
d
nt that th
Tri 1 Court
u t
t ift voting dilution ca
a.. the r 1I01ut1oD of a voting cUlution elai requJ.n. clo.. analy.i. of Wluaually cc.lPlex factual
patterDa, . .e CO
:v. lirk. X, 585 P.24 708, 112713 (5th eir.l"", iDa biCiuae
the d eiaton of
a
• ca
baa the pot ti 1 for .er1ou. i.nurf rene
with atate fWlotlo a,...
n4rix • Joa~ 559 F. 2d
1265, 1271 (5th C1 .1977),
hive strictlY adh r to
the rule 52(a) requir
nt. in voting dilution ca.es
aa4 ba
required d1.trict court. to
plain with particularity tb ir r "ift9 and th lr aub.idiary factual
cl
a
er1.yi.DcJ t.ba1r reaacming •••
PeJ~llapa in no other
of t:Jae la. ia aa ueh specifi'"
city in r 1I01\1Dg &D4 f ct fiDding requir CS, aa ahown
bf r fr
nt r
of voting 4ilation e • a ~
CSi.a iet court••
-Cross v. Bax1: r
604 .24 875,879 (5th eir.l919)
factual inquiry'r
the Voti""
.eh
JU9 ts Aet i .
is 4 tail
ired to aupport the eonclusion th t
or i .
in S nate
ot violated by
port
reprinted in July 1982, U.S. Cod
inth..,~..._
~~'l:' ...u,Jjt.P
particular el etion
• 94-417, 97th Cong., 2d Se
Congo , Ad. N
Page
8.,
29-30
9 • 206-208 1n U.S.C.C. 'A.N. See Appendix I, p. 42.
14
Wher a , the factu 1 inquiry requir d to
concluaion that the Constitution i
v. Lodge,
up or
viol t d i
, 102 S.Ct.3272 (1982), wh ch
U.S.
adopted the Z
upra standard
in Ro
S5
ntt lly
interpreted in
a
Sid ., 571 F.2d 209 (5th eire 1978),
ou
~.
rs
v.
d nied 446 U.S. 951 (1980).
See Appendix II, p. 45.
In
th
t
~nin9
whether or not the Constitution is violated,
Court 1. not liaite4 to tb.
re evant inquiri a.
fold.
y
t
Tbe purpo.
Ba.~r,
eft ct 1. cer
pr
exia~
604 F.2d
7S, B 0
at larqe ayatea.
uat be evaluated
ae f ctors are
c n be in-
stab
t
proc aa i . not a
Ttl
tent or d\
Alt ough
t:her th r
in either
or non-exiat nee of tb
infer diacr1ainatory
factora
t
i
nt nt.
.9 (5th C1r.1979).
thre hold conaideration,
tory int
t.ena.nc8 of th
s, how v r, two-
uta ow d1 cr
ned fl"Oll the viewpoint of
ferred a dJ.
The
they
r
inly
rily.
of these fetor
ke all
.bow th t the eftect of the multi- ember
a!nority
ero a v.
fetor, but should
factora do not
lack of it.
or
1n-
ieal on •
utomatically
Rath r th a
4 then a legal preaumption drawn reqard-
il\9 diacriainatory intent.
Und r th
fact.ual.
-To
of f ctora ••••
If
Voting
9ht Act,
ow
r, th
tabliah a viol tiOD, plaint.iff
inquiry ia pur ly
could sbow a v r ety
S n te aeport, supra, p.28, U.S.C.C. ,
theae obj ctive factors
r
A.N~
shoWn, then baa d upon th
of circum tancea, a statutory viol tlon i • • own.
5
p. 206.
tot 1" ty
Althou9h it i
Report
r
tru
i te and it
dr wn fro
e rt in of thoa
that the factors 1i
factora ha
of r apon.iven aa i. a pr
proqeny, th
n chanq d.
doea not n
ootnot
• (Tb
atat
policy favoring at lal'9
ia tru
eff~.
T e
orlty CJZ'O
clear t
t t
1',
paat discI'
Sen t
s
lection
h d to have
11y,
inquiry: (1)
W 5
right to vote, and (2) doe
bear pre.ent effecta.
itio
n th
ch 11enq d
enate RJ port divides th
re are abjectlv
effecta.
sho~n
diatricts i8 tenuou .)
there paat di.criaination touohing
the
0
reqardinq the question of whether the
ecoRdly, UD4 r Z
pr Hnt
impor anc
,proof of rl!spons' v n
igb in f.vor of th
ach
a
S n
ry f ctor und r Zimmer. wh r as it i
116 ineUe t
e • .uily
h
For ex mpl • the issu
liated aa an -additional factor- which may be
Report, and.a
d 1n
Footnote 114
k a it
~t
.tandard. tor det rmining pres
• Dbancin9 f etor.- und
I'
Z
r ar
CJrouped into a priaary f ctar in the S nate R port.
DOW
lion
of the
faotora liated in the S nate Report i8 I' -
quiI'M to clo the doubl
duty of t
l i....r
factora.
!taUt r, th y
od other rei vant factors are to be oona14 red •• guides to
d tertin
if the totality of eire
inority group baa 1
hav
1e
ace
8
-1.
88
than
nority wt ra ia only to eatablish
u 1 acceaa. -
The f ct Ut t they
is not a d fen e, if in fact, their
than the whit
that th
a than equal ace aa to the pol' tic 1 proc s e .
The burd n of proof of t
th t they h v
atance. indicat
jority.
16
cce.
y
8
Given the differenc
factors
nd th
Z
r f
in
mph
c~or,
of the S
i
nd given
he requ'r
r lat d to finding discrimin tory intent v r u
result, it i.
tir ly po
baa
r could r
upon Z
City,vb
e a an i
R po
n
nt
di crim
ble, if not l'kely, th
ory
n inqu
t
ult in a deci ion favor bl
ulry baaed upon the Sen t
n
to
y
h
R port -relev n
f ctor.- could r ault in a d cl.ion favorable to the minority
vot.er••
In thi. ar
tber
, the Tr lal Court found that under Zi
• a hi.tory of di.cr
effect on politic 1 partiei
r
olv
Voting
inat.ion but t.h
a .
tion,
this f etor in favor of t
iCJht.. Act., the fi
would re801ve t
nd ther for
p.702-706,
City.
Bow
nt
8
ver, und r the
fir.t
te Raport -typical factor- in f vor
que.tion of prea nt
ff ct is
fetor.
If find1
• of f ct had
n
typ1c 1 factor. in the S
tance.
violation of the Voting Right. Act.
Court'. fincUnq t
reun
r i . diacus
firat fetor, th
d1acriain t.ion, a.
inority voters.
CUIICU.
d
according to the list of
er the record 1n th
e..., tM totality of eir·
Tb
it h d no pr
1DCJ of a bi.tory of diacri 1nation
of the llinority vot r • •inee t
a ..parat.
t
er
8
uld cert inly ahow
ch of th.
fetor
and the
belowz
extent of any history of official
d abo
Rec. p.702-706.
17
, " a found 1n favor of th
I
and, the extent to which voting is r cial y
polar!z
vaa found in
r
polarized voting pat
Rec. p.706.
f vcr of the City, Rec.
p.704-70 .
un ble to prove that a h's ory
r c
0
rna haa existed in the City of Abl1 n "
e baai. tor this f'nding
the Court's
diacuaaiona of plaintiff'. Exhibit 16 nd 17, wh ch ar
of r elally polari.
o
rter
ftq
C
14
Court
Iy
vot ft9 in on
lectioft
~
stud es
council rae , and in
adopt alngl
.m~r
district.
. . studie. to be In.uttici nt to eat bliah
pattern of racially polariae4 voting,
nd furth r th
election of aiDOritie. to City Council a
ta r futed
t
The
A
th
ny tb ory
of bloc votiD9 •
• Co~ violated ita duty un4u Rule 52 (a) that ~11
reI
the
at
ev14 ce
~rity
.t be diacu.H4.
voter.' evid
e off r
witD1ll.... , Dr. OIandler David
COurt totally lCJftor
throUCjh one of th ir expert
,
no leaa than
(IC) .eparate inatane a of po1ariz d voting from 1956-
four
1911.
'l'b
aa f0110wa &
ftey
R c.Vo!.6,
1.
1956 Refer D4
tlnq whit
14ren fr
OOIIIIIP1JI80ry
att dance at integrated achools
2.
1 56
anti-
3.
1956 Ret rene!
interpo.ition
c.
1963 Poll Tax R peal
at rend
R c. Vol. 6,
s.
1962 School Board Rac
xicanrican va. White
R c.Vol.6,
atrenqht ning
tion 1 va
favor ing
p.732(515)
c. Vol. 6,
p. 732 (516)
Rec.Vol.6,
p.732(S16)
p.732(S16)
18
p.732(S17)
6.
1968 Sc~ool Bo rd R c
1c nrican Ya. Whit
R c.Vo .6,
p.732(S18}
7.
1968 School Board Race
Black va.
ite
R e.Vol.6,
p.732(58)
1970 School Board Rae
xicanrican VB. Whit
Ree. Vol. 6,
p.732(519)
1970 School Bo rd
81 ck v••
it
Ree.Vo .6,
p.732(519)
8.
M
9.
10.
c
1'70 City Council Race
riC&ll v •
xieanite
Rec.Vol.6,
11.
1 70 City Council
Black v. tlhi~e
R c.Vol.6,
p.732(520)
12.
1971 City Co cil
0
xicanrican v••
ll.
UM~
studies
t.ba~
pplied in vot1D
trary
•
Croa. v.
14
A c.Vol.6,
a
atabliahed.
each of th
n.how polarised
Under Rul
52 (a), th
race. if it
·UDd r t.be Rul
r
i.
dilution c •• , thi. •
n error of la" v loh th
Purthenaore, ain
of polarization is uncontra4ict d, th
tt rn of pol ri
Court can
'ngly
000-
d.~
failur
ke a contr ry finding.
erron
to
COurt ia free
xten.ive
vid ne
Court's finding that th r
tion ia ·01 arly
19
this
go D9
52 ( ) atandard,
GO. P.24 875,880, (5th eir.1979).
to correct by a rfllUlld.
Appell t
Rec.Yol.6,
p.732(532-53S)
a required to be di.oua.e4 and consider
diacu.. thi. evieSenc
is no
p.732(521-S32)
t
no a ch pattern uiat.a.
a. atrictly
p.7~2(520)
r a 15 y
0
di~ua.
Rec. VoL6,
it
Diatrict
certainly a pettern ia
Court v a required to
to bold
a.UM~
1"1 Single
Election
All of
voting.
c
1979 City Council
ce
ricu va.
Mexicu-
lC.
p.732(520)
ua,·
nd the
P-urth r, th
Trial Court has iqnored the
White, supra, and Grav
v. Barn
II
0
(I), 343 F.Supp.704,73
(W.D.Tex.1972) that white support of a
still be indieativ
ch' n
t
inority candid
can
t
of racially polarized votinq.
Additionally, th
Fifth Circuit has held th
"l"Dt;lng . .y be proved eire
bloc
tanti lly by proof of (1) 1 rg
dietricu,
(2)
cancli
running !re- particular geoqr pbic sub-district , and
jority vot
r
(5) exi.tence of paat discr
511 r.2d 209,223, Pootnot
uire
nts (3) anti-s n91
ination in 9 ner 1.
18 quoting
~Z='~~r,
sho
N vett v. Side ,
supra, 485 P.2d at
1305.
of th
til
'l"rial COurtc
e1..-nta
re found to exist in Abilene by
Large 4ietricta,
• p.711, ADti-ain,l
r
.p.112, Lack of geoqra
Bx1at
jority vot
• p.711,
ahot votin9 provisiona,
ical s\lb-41.triete, Rec. p.712, and
ce of past. 41acrilli
tloD in 9
howeVer, failed to conai4 r the.
ra1,
R
•
p.702.
Court,
Th
finding. a. th :y bear upon the
queation of racially polarised voting.
Such failure is aDoth r
rror of la.,.
!'urnin9 to the
Court found
712. (
cb of "the
paragraph abo
Ttl
ird
nate R port -typical factor,· the
factora to exist in Abilen •
..
R c. p.71l-
for each f otor.)
n xt question to be an
20
red i
vb th r ther
II
a
c ndid t
slating proce••
have be n denied
grou
th
to
rr
it found that there
acee•• to the .lating proce s in Abil n
In finding that it i8 only th
th
d under s ction 2
s th
froca
acce...
poli 'es.
tinq Droc
8,
xpert witness, Dr.
i4son, Reo. p.132(552 ffl, as to oth r barriers to
On
tMe ",•• u *
Court ignored
a we 11 th
• p.132(290),
th
virt
~lia
the
.la~-
exclusion of interest
&king proc
vblter
~
ferr d to
a f etual
cae being th
t
on
Aquirr , Rec. p.131(327),
I'
nov'ernment
CBG) •
on
tter, Abilene i.
rty.
Sinc
tt
ted Citi. ns for
"!'be vbi t -4
with a significant amc)unt of t
novel' 92.5
t stified to
aiDariti • from influ nee in
part:y city, with the
inated CBG
eancUdat•• that run for city office, .lat
R c. p.732(SS2).
ny
of Abil n '. only 81 ting «)rOUP, th
, business-ori
f~
t.t
c. p.732(269), Rev.
gli.h,
anct Marie V 141 C!U a, Reo. p.131 (382), all of vb
th
Rec.p.70
oa
,
~
II
plaintiff
0
Abi
Y of plaintiff's
of plaintiff.' witness
Ch rein
n
only Official or formal barriers to ace
and ignored the t ••ti
I'
0
re -no barriers
subjective opinion
rticlpating in th
Court consider
Chandl
the
0
nded, and under case law in er rp, ation
15th
that k
nori y
he
0
ccess to that proee s.
The Oi trict Court
Rights Act,
nd whether mell\b rs
ir e
8
th
ai9n
a~l
cta th
, and prov!
xpenae.
its inee tion in 1964, CBG e ndidates have
aueee. ful in having their eandidat
21
8
I eted to
th
Cit
Abilen
d under ord n ry c
Council,
sible to wJ.n
virtually i
without CBG b eking.
ci ty
ndor
by CBG in
ither
eaadidat
in the pa.t, it 41d
inority
nity 1 aders.
t •• of cae;
r
ri
races w
hewn that wher
r
i
i 1 n
or
5
hout
h
for vot • or contr bu ·ons.
inorit1e
(507), and it waR fur
, i
ny r
At tri
qen ral el etion. can and do win city-wid
tty of app a11ng to
nc
etton' n rnodern-d y
Ree.p.732(SS5).
tb t white candidates
cum
CBe he
s1
.0 without th
n c
R c . . 732
d minor ty
of
Rec. p.732(269,290-293,580,58l).
il&terally d t nain
¥beth
l'
s-
a black or
Th
exiean-
rican vil1 be slated; how -.oy vill be slat d; and who vill
be .lated in city go
.1gnifie
which
t
nt electioft8, R c. p.73l(270).
tb t t
aillori~
14 be .lat
.lat
pe
1.10 • about vh ther and
• it
noriti
are....
witbout
8rd to vheth r th
atll tic to the probl
ty, or vb til r t.he cancUdat • e
norlty
i ority
ship with the
v. Barn ., 343
ity.
.t one in.t
n h v
of the
a r 1 tlon-
ec. p.73l(294,386,387).
.Supp. 726 (1972).
fact th t in at 1
It i
Graves
District Court iqnor d th
, th
succes.fully e1 ct d
nonty alateet by CBG, Joe Alcona, v • not ev n a resident of
~il
the Cl
of
the CBG
inority n
neighborhood••
vtl n
ineea did not
n
l'
.id
Rec. p.734(148), 73 (294).
inoriti a had no
CBG r crul
lected to run, and in any c s , two of
in
inority-d
Further, in Abilen ,
aninglul opportunity to participat
nt process for c ndldates.
22
in t d
Wh re minorltl
in th
did
t
pt to participate in the CDC slat'nq seh
tied that either th y ver
290,323), or th ir
discounted as
0
ignor d
ins
t CBG
ngs,
c. o.731(27Q,
u9ge tiona for 90t ntial c ndid
how in ppropri te by CB ••
w r
Rec. p.731(2
,27,
290) •
In particular, one black witn
that in 1978 h
D
lnatinq
perceiv
a C
'a
tia
lncludlftCJ pot
candi
tial
acaIPt:C1e byth
that t
of tb ir Q
that during th
pot
r
••leet
tea the
•
itt e- could veto any
ttee c
~
a-inat1nQ
H
c.p.731(270).
tt e, none
tt
sU9gested,
c.ndldat a, verveI' found to
tt.
C
Rec.p. 731(272).
ddltion-
ntully choa n by
who weI'
tt
by t.h
th
e vea,
a told to • atrong y
Both of th
tln 1ly found to b
he
tifi d th t
He t
nomin ting
and aftelV rda the n
co aid r- th
nd found
aerved on th
that eancU4at
CBG to run
C
ittee
1ed
extent th t what h
liflcationa.
tt-e
alnori~
I:xeC\Kl
lly, he r
to th
Executiv
vith, regardl
of th
Rec • • 731(270).
v a pow 1'1 a
itt
sU9Q ationa for candldat
teat!fl
rt Eng i h,
aerved on CBG's nominating co
experience to be ·Y ry bad.th
8, Ro
n
a th
acceptabL
Executive C
ttee
R c.p.'ll
re whit
(273) •
rand Is iab Nor land, another witn.a , testified
h
too h d
tt
1975, to obtain th
to work through
n
CB~,
so
tl~e
during 1970-
in tion of a black candid te for city
23
at
council.
C8~
H
tated that
r fused to do
o.
u~n
att
ting to nomina
Rec.o.731(290).
He te tiff d th
.
... .
eventu lly quit vorking with CRG becau e
couldn't get anythinq done through th
blacks.who
Rec. p.731(291).
CBG auc
Of th
a bla
sec~med
h
ha
CBG organization
w
or
black c ndidate, Leo Scott,
a ully ran for City Council in 1978,
Mar 1 nd lndlc ted that Mr. Scott had n ver b en especi 11y
active in th
to th
nority eam.unity, and th t hi
bl ck
ooo~mity
• ••• nOftchalant
standing
0
e vas characterized by a
Rae. p.731(293).
He al
0
atat d that it wa
hia opinion that CBGta ne-jnation vas an
1810na for blact people.
in9
alateeS by
very acti
t
n
r pre
t.·
Rec.p.7ll(386).
any
bod
V
at trial th t ah
r hard of h
and pick th
Ev n
candidate.·
here a strong
elvea to maJc
•
that • ••• so
that d ciaion for me
Rec. p.73l(382).
inority candid t
24
nd he
bad not vot d for
rican alated by C8G for the r aso
elae tcv* it upon th
church,
Of Leo Scott, this Mexican
Allerican "itn aa atated that .be had •••• 1'
Thia vitn .a too indic t
vho has b
coalitions
vith the bl eta and otb r orqaniutiona with th
vu ne
.8
n tion, ahe b d· ••• never (s en)
tinqa tb t ve had, and we had fo
any
rican who va
xican-
Of a
people
rican civic aff irs testified
Mexicu
that prior to Mr. Meerut
hi
Ie of vhit
cS elected to City Council, • vitn
ill Abilen
pon ivene
His concern vas not a vivid and out-
ttitu
-
•
of Abil
r
ha.
tt
n
ch llenge
CBG-backed candidat
vas found that the probl
task w re in u
of CBG.
x
rt
unt
nd
du
1
or el etion
xp n
to the
Rec.p.73l(323,32 4 ).
white candidat
0
a soci
i
,
d w h s c
uperior financ'a) r
ou c
S
And historically, pl in if
ound, -There has never be n a ca
o poain9
0
who vo
bi ek
0
1n th
ca e
Ab
0
c
lty
len
°
Rec. p.732(506).
t th
Diatrict Court f i1 d to rec09niz
ev lu tion of the
ccea.ibllity of
inoritiea ia that e
COIIlllUlll,ity r
ardinq th
it did not), t
whicb i. •
the ayat
a.ctio
n if
t totally
in the proc
candid t
of th
Abil
8Yfton~
would ati1l b
2 at
not
with
no
a.
It i. cl ar from th
ar
o
white
tt
IUIUl
jority.
courts to b
~y
OBG
party procedur s,
to ent r th
r only through th
requi
only by
nt for
howing that
of the white areas,
formulation of the
nt
In eaa nc , minori ti
in
politic 1 proc as in any
benevol nc
of th
nant
n held ov r and ov r again by the
an unacceptable stat
minoritiea) ia to b
nor! ti s
evidence at trial, that in Abilene
r occura.
Tbis h a b
(which
political sy t m,
black qh tto, like tho
into consideration In tb
lneaningf l1
it did sl t
a, aupra, .aid that, -Th
cb consid retion
Abilen
inority
darda ot -eft ctive particip tion- by
the intr ata of th
a1 te.-
ft
0
t either judicial standards, or
eff ctive p rticipation can be an
are tat
alatinq proees
G had consulted th
inorit
operatio
C8~'s
in its
of affair.
1 bel d • ff
2S
-If particip tOon
tiv', th n it c rtainly
u t be
tt r of right, and no
a func ion
race."
0
au!'r •
At trial,
hen Dr. Chandl r Oavid on, plaintif s'
v a a ked hia opinion as to vh th r black
have
eeeaa to CBC's nom!
that wdnoriti a hav
than do whit
B.
tinq proc
l.a
In
Davidson cited the following ex
(1)
Chai
Ttl
i. not
hi
of tb
s
ric ns
mony ind ca ed
no in ting proc dures
upport of his
opinio~
Dr.
from his re e reh:
Ie
80 rd of Dir ctor
wocratieal y el ct d.
Dr. DavicSaon·. r
of CBG
According to
vice-chai
reb.
an i
ar by the Board of Di rectors
chosen each
aDd a
nd Mexic
ce aa to CBn'
Rec.p.732(571).
xpert.
ly au
tica11y in th
cia to the ehat
n
y
ute-
.bip
r.
. p .732(565,
4 (571a-573).
566)
1Datinq c
(2)
Dr. David
n fo
••1 cte4 by til
f~
inp t
tt
of CDC has no power.
4 it to be.
Board of Director. without
oth r partie!
fo
1 structure whereby
and
re ua
info
ttee-
ta.
are oftJ n not told as
11
ly a group
rs about th
rsona
y b
n
nated,
that th ir input vill
only be of an adviaory natur.
Dr. D vid on con-
clud d that
tt
b yond
t
nomin tlng
h d no pow r
king augg stiona to the 80 rd.
(573,57.'.
26
R c. p .732
(3)
The proc dur
proc
1
is
V
for particip tion in CBG's
gu • and ther
ay for manipulation.
n
is a gr at d al
Por
xampl~,
0
Dr.
o vidaon found that ven per ons who had
t
5
on CBC'. Do rd of Oir ctors gave diff ring
eeount. of how the .lating proc
actually
work d, and it va. hi. opinion th t ther
cb confuaion and ignorance about th
was
process
not only on the p rt of minority participant ,
but alao on the part of -th
going lnto an &Dftual
(C)
ting.-
Dr. Dav14aon Ob••r
••c
-.
aloorltl...
o
r
c. p.732(57S).
th t the CBG slatin9 proee£
If-.~~.·
a.
p rson
and -lode
teatifled that h
ndent-lllind d-
va. -struck
dover ••• gain 1n (bis) con
people all
vay
~
bact in the alctdl
r.at1ona with
thOse who h ve b
f~
•60'. up
~
n active
people that had
been involved on the board 1n the 1
t
three year.
don t t want
0
people who ha
have
8
n
ene
9r1.n4.· ••• •P
to
90al they w
R.c. p.732(S77,5'9).
that h
phrase,'
uaed th
t
to •
ple who
lish in offic '••-
Dr. Davidson furth r testified
had found that • ch an ideol09ic 1 pref r-
tended to work to e.clud
minority group
of CBG.
two or
re fro
R c. p.732(S80).
27
th
most popular
vinning the n
ination
(5)
Dr.
o videon a1
th
choJc
of candidat
tty were frequ
found.
by. vell-respected b1 ck
v. Ollif t
(.ic), r gard
the .election of t.h
Leo Scott.
(6)
Dr.
Rec.
of C8G c
_>Uftt
of
to
t
led "inn n
giv n
0
in at r
n Abilen ,
9 the eire
tancea of
r
sons for th
in Abilen
or:iti
Sine
n,
ucc
Dr. D vidaon t atifi d
th t there
t
ill
a
eh
c ndid
ia, ••••
ttributed to a 8elfat work in th
0
pose CBG .••
get nearly th
p titor ..... and people express
28
City
convine d
ple bee
no re 11y good. r a on to
n<l, con
t
n 1 .ucc •• of
th
fulfilling prophecy mechani.
of Abi
rally lack
9
gain.t car,-back
oould b
poll
polit.ics •
ff ct of di8eour 9ing
th
fraa trying to run
th
out. of CBG larg e.
unt of fund. to
• b
pent bv
was
In eff ct, th t. bigh
caBP'i~.
ir
to an equal
t
xam 1
ey they b d av ilabl
c
CBG
eand' at
.732(580,58l}.
.c. p. 732(552).
(7)
c:c: p
414at. va. dir ctly related to the
.pender. eq
acce
or
d by t
r black C ty Counci
fo
found th t th
vid80
h
y
~r ~c:tly
cific
H
m nor
j e
y r
n
hit - proved minorit
hen a
hi
of th
th t CBe later found
rea on
t hQ fou d
h
0
ney
•
• ••• di eourag
ent Over the possibilit
able to successfullv win aga'n
bein
0
cac enid
a
R c. p. 732(555,556).
(8)
Ace aa to p rticipat'on
operation.
n CBG
s 1i it d
by
i
Or. Davidson found barri rs to
p rticioation such as noon
tinq
of
hor
duration, 1 ck of oppoaing factions among th
•
11 group of att
fr
s, lack
11 precincta , th
proc edin9s,
in
r the S
r, all of vh ch tended
DOrity group be r th
of in
foun
that·
IIOr
found that
1
1
whie
alao
(S e
far InOr
1nority f
loyed as prof aaionala,
lao plaintiff'
Th
Court
e
Specifically, the Court
pov rt.y line, th t the
uch low r for
Pootnote 11.
d pr ss d socio- con
f~
are 1 ss
poor r than "hi tea, th t th re ar
w
Ith.
• p rticip tion in th
iDoriti.a in Abila
li s b low th
t to which
nd living co di tiona.
difficult- R .p.703.
f
xt
effeeta of discrimination
t and b
1
oriti.s still suffer
co dit.ions in Abilen
proes
~c.p.732(562-570).
at. Report a.ka the
ecS cation,
dds
entat"on
pro forma nature of the
to bind r oarticipation.
. .lIbera of tb
repr
d v ri tion in the seleetion
proe ss from y ar to y
Point 5
0
ili
S1
a9 ra, and a
xh bit '38, a
29
uc ted and
11
black and Hispanic
dian f
r
'ly inco
noritl s v r
in1 tratora. R c.p.690.
ocio-econo 1c profil
of
Additionally,
Abi1 ne.)
the sub-
court found
dard hou 1 9 unit
t
R c.p.690-69l.
areas.
h
The r
nt
i
c.p.703.
re in
Plain i ft
0
ly d
Plaintiff'
on tr
Exhi it
d
33
only 29. of the
w • regi.tered,
va. r
t
concem1ng
th
rat
r
sed
of
a1Dor1~
as lat
regi t r d
W8
ion
are r 91 t red
rieans and
participation.
over 3-1/2
t
Footnote 114
0
pointed out in
554 r.Zd 139,145 (5th eir.1'77), -It i . not n c
nority p
c
i . an infer
h
. . Uug t by Kirk.ey v. Board of SUpervisor ,
footDot.,
that
Qund b
the black Yotin9 age popu1
0
rate of bl cta c rt.alnly Ifteets the t at
• th
ti
on
t
di.parity in vbich white
than twice t.
mor
nd
d
iean-1UDer can vot ng population
only 17.8'
l.ter d.
3,)
howed tha
a. 1979, 63.5' of the white voting age popul
t.o vote, vbll
ori y
xhibi
t
0
h
Pootnote 1 4, to show depr
0
norltY participation, vas
Court.
w -thir's
t
in the city
al
(S
h
educational 1
a
a cauaal link.
whicb flowa
lJ. t.i
f~
••
e
til
Inequality of ac
exiat
1dual
l"
(of di.erbdnatlon) reflected ita If in th
riean voting reqiatr tion
in
ary in any case
c
of eeon
ie and
ct of thi
i tory
fact that
very poor ••• •
8
xican-
Whit
Y.
giater, 412 u.s. 755,76' (1973).
It ia cl ar that
Court'a finding th
t
norit
longer be r the burd n of diacrtatn tion i . cl arly
e sixth fetor of ov rt or subtle racial ap
not found to
its diecu
xlst by th
Court.
R c •• 708.
no
rron ou .
1
v
The Court l' it d
ion r qardinq this factor to vh ther the local wb te-
30
domin t d 81 tin9 group had
inquiry i
bro d r.
Th
lied unon such
Cour
did not di cu s
plaintiffs that in 1970 and 1971, th
for Cit
t
Council, Mrs. Am 11
ctics.
h
vi
Aquirr
of threats and abuses.
Rec.p.73l(325,360-366).
County Cl rk'. Offic
r~es
Ano her
0
in ord r to fil
an
The failur
ce violat • its duty under Rul
cl arly points to the
tact1cs 1n Abl1
xiat
c
en
~f
nt to an election
the Court to di cuss
52().
Th
of both ov rt and aubtl
ha
:
s
ent.h senate
1n 1980.
ction..
p at 10 years on th
ayat
A Mexican
R c.p.'91.
-The
"~.aerican
Abilen
1973
in 1973, and
elect d
in th
Clty C
inoriti
xican·
08.
i
dur1nq the
••10n ( ic), under the
, 1. strong - if not concluaiY
dilution of or d nial to
City
The COurt placed gr at
lec1:ion of
th tat-large syst
p t
r cial
port factor.
in 1976, a black, unopposed, 1n .1978, and anoth r
at-l r<J
evidenc
• b ve been elect d to th
Council 1n Ab1l n , th
on
0
electio ••
Aa to v
r1c
i1in9
th
ttorn y to go with her to th
Rec.p.73l(376-380).
they certainl
0
of the P ace post in Taylor County (Ab"l ne).
Later she had to rtain an
this evid
y
red
plaintiffs, Mrs. M rie V Iasqu z, had dt ficulty in
r port.
0
- the
history of Abil ne - suf
Ju tic
nc
exic n
run for council in th
run for
Th
evid nc
not r suIt in
- that
ith r
inorit!ea th ir full right to partici-
ctora1 proc 88e8 of that city.
31
R c.p.7lS.
Th
Court f lIed to heed
he warning on Footno e 115,
Report, p.29, OeS.C.C. , A• • p.207: "How ver,
of a few minority can
dat
does not n c 9sarily
possibility of dilution of th
s ction.
exi.t
~
!
that tb
Th
hay
by the white
iDated CBG.
th
~nority
TwO
of t
lected
ity di.trict. of Abil
ad
th
all
~e
~Ube~
council
ver
n liv
diatrict.
in the
in 1980
8
b
n
nor-
veil
1 eted, th n
f vcr of the city.
d
inated
inort ty
latinq group, and
pol riz d voting.
iqhs 1n favor of the
32
But 1n
.elected not by the
ajority in a city who
p rva.iv
f ctor
d
City Council to change
19b 1n
Id
ite electoral
con 1d r d, th1
sla
•
inori ty candic1at
are charact rized b
entat ves w r
to .inql
~nority
torat, but fint by the ""it
by
repr
nority candldat
inde~)ttft
certainly thi. factor
1
of th ir
, fir. Rodriquez. elect
.fter this .uit va. til
Abilpn
lnoritO
of th
Abil n
at larg
0
.g.
' minority candidate."
1 et r presentativ
ted
re pl ce4
•
Only
y
42 O.S.C. 1973b.
All of th •• 81
d
his
0
vade this section
atatute etqmasize that
ual opportunity -to
choice.-
ight
el ctlon of a lsa
very words of th
ion
h
If it did, the DO sibi
jority citizen
nipulatlng th
b
or clo
hI ck vote in viol
485 P.2d at 1307.
cion
el ctton
Properly
nority vot r .
Th
Court discuss d th
issue of respon iv n ss,
Report additional fetor, for n ne page
one
9
opinion, and resolved th
both
• to th
provision of mun eipa
unlcip 1 jo s
di.tribution of
a.
ti 1 part of plaintiff's e
Sen
y,
0
and a
0
to bond
nd
Report, p.29,
t
pon tv nes
e.- Accord:
, 102 S.Ct. 3272,3280, Footnot
___U.S.
vor
s rvice
that· unr
207, cl arly .tat
n
nd ap ointment
ootnot. 116 of th
!.:..!!:. p.
i su
h'r y-
0
.S.C.C. &
is not
Roger
v. LOdge
9 (1982).
The
nority voters would point out that the Trl 1 Court in
disc
u.
aion of t
by the city of f der 1 fund
ts
has iqnor d
chinqa of Auaber!y v. City of Monro, 456 F.SuPP. 4 0
the t
(W. D.
La.19?1).
It. i . bIportant to not
IIWllclpal ••rvice. quot.ed by til
of r .po a1.
••
aft r
t
provided prl
ily
ligation of tb
a
only b
aupr , at 465.
•
IIOr
that
n provided t.o
of federal .cni.. and ar
~EOugtl
f
Th
R c. p. 696.
local tax dollars
in th
court found that th
city bond and revenu
nority ar a8
today atill b lng
ral t\mds.
city i . to dl.tribut
'ftl
any of th
a .u99 stive of a finding
Court
n apend fe4eral doll n
bly,
·fr
n
dated areas.
us
obuita-
Ausberry,
of fed ral dollar
funda for other se
nt
of
the city.-ec.p.6 I.
As to tb
inoritie
ar
icipal job., it. is cl ar from th
grouped in th
Defend nts' Exhibit 32.
It is
33
lowest job categories.
180
record that
See
cle r, th t d spite an
aff!
tive
etion plan, that tellingl
Rec.p.7l3(792 793), th
three job cat gori
tot 1
5
ploy
p rc
ha
a.
tage of
etion plan:
hir d into th
0
0
ricanl
he
1974 - 1981,
top
at
's
o-ea led a
ir
no minorit'
r
15 of 72 into th
cond
A. to this latter,
• rvi
could certainly be drawn that blacks and
r
bou
ly 5 of 14 into the third highest eat gory,
1y 16 of 200 into protecti
c
of
top job cat gory, onl
high It c tegory,
d
norities in th
tati tics on new h res, PIa'n'
Th
Fr
no goals or
ined reI tively eon tan
Exhibit 37, ahow. the lack of result
tive
ha
hired into til
polic
d
fi~
xican
rtmenta in
d
anticipation of ':ri 1, -...ny being hired vithin v
kl of tri 1,
be. p. 732 (70U •
covt placed an illproper burden
Ttl
voter
to pro
by
t v.. til
apeculat
reault of til
that thinga
a v rd ayat
• Tb
cUaparity in
t:be ll\inority
that tb
at 1 rge a at
dilparity in
,
14 not 1ik 1y have
inority votera bur
c. p. 101, and th n
n bett r und r
n ia to d
•
nstrate that
t ia tr ceab1e, directly or inferentially,
1
to aeta of the local CJO¥ rnmenta1 bod", not to th
election ach
loy-
at-1arcJe
Croaa v. Baxter, 604 P.2d 875, 883 (5th Cir.
919).
TIl
("':)urt al
of the bo rd.
nd co
0
found th t fr
i ••iona
not have ev n one minority
ap~inted
r.
34
1968 throuqh 1982, 48\
by th
City Counei 1 did
Of 1,110 position
to b
filled during this t
10.6' of th
canci. . , but only on on -hal
V
boards and co
th
Th
to eq
iaaiona.
~naiv
city r
period, minorities were a pointed
in thi
hoI
0
Y t th
Court
nt and
ia cle rly-erro
•
r
ppointaent
laa~
y, t
to board
d4itlonal factor
a~-larg
ac
i. -t
uo
..
Th
Cour
~ti
4iacr
to be
• a
th
Collegiate
d pro
iaa
•
Dietiona~,
a. bing aynonyw,ua with •
1y stated, -(Is
..
aunc! ratood by sever 1
G.e.
a
word i
Ttl
Herri
fin
in
and Co., 1977,
Tb r< for , all the minority
ia that th re ia a " &It at t
policy under
pr f rene •
ia ia pr
alao by
Thi. factor, dr wn
or at large 41atricting?-
court. that
rule city
natio.
ra, at 1305, ia corr
word •
lying au
found
.ute poliey underlyiDg the prefer nc for
til re) a t
vot ra n
policy
that the .tate policy b hind the
v
directly fro- I
ons,
theory that tb
Ilinority votera had to!»Z'O
~
5
not d in the Sen te
thia f et.or in fayor of th
la
Iv
and co
rt, p.29, U.S.C.C. 'A •• p.201, is vb th r th
und rlyiDg th
a~
oun
Court'. findings und r this f ctor, especi
1
R
c. p.70l.
0
ia ly th
llowed by the atat
tat
c..
in Tex
•
Abil n
i
a h
constitutio, Art. 11, Sec.S, and
law, Art. 1175, to adopt through its chart r
3S
ither
w rd or
the
n a -1 rg
~v
law r 9 rdin
choice,
the
n the courts
In s
t
ctLon
vs
P.2d 238 (5th C r.1978) rev r
5S (1 80).
Jo
~
Accord:
110
~
Cros
~
(S.D.
v. Baxt r, 60
F'.2d ae4-85i
-r tio a1
district'ng
h
a~
t
plan.-
t te DOliey
ft
er di.tricts in
Cour ,
nuou
a
eon
ta e
itute ev'denc
nact
Gr vea II h ld that ther
xplaininq th
II
--;.;..;;...;~
The
roper me ivat ons lay beh nd th
aint n nee of th
i
d on oth r ground. 4 6
571 F.2d 209,224 (5th Cir.1978) h s he d
policy in favor of at-larg
1.
a.197)
ph, 559 F.2d 1265, 1270 (5th Cir.197B).
th t other, i
wh c
ve he d th t h e or
~__~~~~~~~Mo~b~~1~e,423 .Su~p.384
57
ons
U
sent u
of
ny county.-
nt or
w s no
ulti-
• 378 r.Supp.640,
643 ( .0. Tex.1914).
Grave. I
oted that
T x
meftber diatriet , t
n in
ntirety 0
Texa. electoral laws
and of
history,
8'
u e
ulti-
0
nconstitution lly Infr nq • the voting
rights of r eial and pelit cal
th tare 41stricted as Nulti-
inoritie
er.-
in all T xa
c'ti
Gr vea v. Barnes, 343
• Supp.704,124 ( .0. Tex.1912).
Ev n if th
inor'ty vot r ' burd n v s to de
th t the at larq
8cr
root d in a stat
ination, the
at 1269, teache , The
th
t-l r e concept c n
its
ta utory
no
t that burd n.
nif
judici 1
~
nstrat
policy of
H ndrix, supr ,
t tion of a stat 's po icy tow rd
be found
onounc
nta.
Th
n th
su
0
ndix to
T e
t·
larg
requir
election
t
c.p.711.
o
ad
\If •
ext naive
8
opinion th t an i
factor b
1n4
H detail
d
v..
r> cial t
aio
at-large
lectio
h d a
t.
electoral
adoption of the
d in Abi
•
roe
n
publicly ataUd r
nt
A .tat
vote
w.r
t
Un
Supr
evi
n
Additionally, h
Dot d
run-off requi
ee.p.732(600).
of
of
adoption of
jority
r C
a.ion w••
Ch~
adoption . . . to inaure that.
nor!ty
.p.732(60S).
Dt.
for proving diacriaiDatory intent d line t
Court in Villa,
of Arlington
politan Mouain, Develop!!nt Corp• • 2
~his
rtie1p tion in t.h
.p. 732(5'9), and that th
trol of city goy
r the clit ri
by tb
t~
t by til
could not gain
t
Charter Ca.da ion v r
te,
at the
~
and atagg r
t
orit,
1lyaceurat.
eon for i u
• r
that
n t·on, Rec.
for the adoption of
ct
nt.
period of high
ui
c.p.732 (591-5'3).
for
elected
one
it vu v 11 known in 1962
illpact upcm
•
for h s
requir
t, both in th
. .jority vote r
that all
th
jority vat
IIY, it v..
Purthe~r,
ec)ati
rt witnes , Dr. Chandler
,ec.p.732(587-S97), in which
In at
It
17 and 21, Rec.p.S9 ;
mati v t.ion va
raei
hiatorieal cont
th
ia10n
x
jority vo
vid nee as the basi
nl1•• abl
~
p.732(S"-S87)
th
Stipulation
inority voters'
The
vidaon, pr
d.
continu d, and
\If
BC
regarding th
u.s.
el,bt.a v. Metro-
252, 266-268 (1977),
historic I context,
38
ct, and
contemporary
if
tat
nts of th
valid finding of tnt
de no such
ei.r
u1e 52(a)
i4 n
facta as
of this
pr ••nt d.
tb~
in
Th
TrO 1
nority vot rs pr
en~
d ev denc
at larg
r cia1 r ason.
A9ain. none of this
i~ct
x
t i . to be mad •
xpert that th
in 1'62 for an invidio
th
ust b
ourt
xamination.
Additionally, the
throug
particip nt
.yst
was rna' n
in d
Rec.p.732(606-601).
ce va. di.eused.
• clearly violated in holding contrary
iden
without discussing
A r
d i . requir d to
bear upo
the q
in 1962.
39
ach pi c
co~id
0
of
r th
tion of 4iacriJainating int nt
CONCLUSIO
The
to
inority vot re, appel ants herein, pr y th
revere. and r
f.ilure
to
follow
nd thl
C
dicta~
U8
cou
to the Trial Court
8 of Rul
or
52(a) F.R.C.P.
epectfully
itted,
1300 Do 91.e, Suite 800
Da11•• , TX 75225
214/ 369-1952
GALE PATTB
A"l"'TO
100
A
LAM
in St.
ft. WOrth, '1'X 76102
17/ 336-3943
A'r'1'O
40
YS POR PLAt TIPPS-APP LLANTS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I h r by c rtify that a copy of th
Bri f h s been furnish d
~
Ap
11
foregoing Appellants·
st attorney
of r cord,
Mr. H rv y cargill, P.o. Box 60, Abil n , T xas, 19604, by c rtified
il, r turn r
d y
eipt r
0
Attorney at Law
41
February, 1983.
APP NDIX NO. I
Typical factor
inc1udez
1.
(T)h ext t of
y history of offic
tion in the t te or political ubdiv 'on that
touch d the right of the
r of the inority
group to reg1.ter, to vat , or otherwi
to p rticip t 1n the d
cr tic proc
~
2.
(T)h ext t to "hich voting in e1ec ions of the
atate or political aubdiviaion i . rae! 11y polariz
3.
d~
(T)h ext: t to wbich th stat or political ub41 i.lon haa us
u.n\dually 1 rqe el etion district ,
jority vote r uir
nt8, anti-.ingl .hot provi.ion., or other
ting practice. or ~rocedur 8
that
y
nh
th opportunity for di cri ination
again.t the
ority gro J
4.
f then 1. a cu414at. alating proce•• , vh ther the
of
a1noI"l ty gro p
b n denied ace 8
to that P
,
(I)
_IIIMI~.
S.
(If) h e .
t to
nority group
aUte or political.
ar the
effeeta of d1aar1ll.1ftation 1ft .uch ar .. a. edueat 'on,
l~t,
4
alth, wbich hin r th ir ability
rtici te effectively in ~ political proc•••.
1ft t
(Footnote 114) Th COurt. hav recoqniz d
that 4lapr:oportio
1,
loyt, in
1
1
living con41tion.
ari.i 9 fraa peat diacr~atJon t d to
~),.aa
rlty politic 1 par~icipation,
e·9·
ite, 412 u.s. at 7", aiiJ;
Board of Sup!rvi.ora, 554 F. 2
,
•
itS.
"" re th
conUtlon.
•• own,
and vb
r
1
1 of black partici tion 1n politic
ie depr ••ed, ~lai.Dtiffa 1M
not prove any
furth r causa! COftft rtio b tween their
di.parate .ocIoIe status and th
d pr •• d 1
1 of political partici~ation.
~
42
6.
(W)hetb I' poli~ic 1 c paign h v been ch r c eriz
by ov r~ or .ubt1 racial ppealsi
7.
(T)h extent to which embers of the inor" y group
hav been lec~ed to public office in the jurisdiction;
(FOotnote 115) Tb fact th t no emb r 0
alnority group hav
n elcted to of ic ov r an
x~
. d period ot
is probative. However, the
el ction of
f
inority candidates do
not
"nee ••arily forcl0•• th possibility of dilution
of the bl ok vot ,. in violation of th s
ction.
It.-er, 485 F. 2d a~ 1307. If it did, th@ possibility
exl.t. tha~ th
jority citiz n might ev d the
-.ction, e.g. by
i 1ating th
1 etion of a
iDorlty c cUd
• "w r
to hold that
• ~nority c
14ate' • •ucc... t th poll 1s
co clu.ive proof of • ainorl~y group'
cces& to
the poli~lca1 proce•• ,
would
rely
inviting
.~t
t. ~ ci
t th OOnsti~ution ••• Inat d,
we
11 continue ~ require an iad p dent consider tio of tbe record." ~.
-..t.·
Additioul fetor. that i .
v.l
•
par~
of
ca.e. hav
pl.intiff.' •
nca
~o
hav
prob tiv
e.tabliah
violation
are.
(W)bether ~re i • • ai ificant 1 ok of ra.poDaiv
rt of elected official. to tile particulariz
_ _I'. of the a1nori~y group.
ea. on
nee4a
(PootAote 116)
Uftreaponaiv . .a ia DOt an •• tial
p&rt of plai tiff'. c.... I
1'1 White (a. to Dallas).
'fberefore, of
nt's proof of
re.po iven ••
would ot
te pla tiff' • •howing by oth I' mor
o iecttv f tor. en
.tM her that aillOrity YO ra
MV rt.hele..
r .hut out of eq 1 ace
to
th political p1'OCe...
t reject. the
ruling in '#I v. wcton and
. nion ca• • that
unre.pon.iv
•• I.
requi.ite 1
t, 639 F. 2d
1375 (5th eire 1981), Can approach appar tly tat n
in order to
ly with th intent requlr
nt which
the Supr
Court' a plurality opinion in Bolden
1apo d on
foraer 1 nCJUAg. ot S ctiOD 2.) ko ever,
.hould plaintiff choo.. to offer evid ce of unr apon.lv
a., th
th d f 4ant could offer rebut.tal
vid nc ot I' apon.ivene•••
CW)hether the policy un rlyinq the atate or political .ubdivision'. u•• of auch vot.ing qu lificat Oft, prerequ1.it to
votiDg or. ndard, practic or procedur 1. tenuoua.
43
(Pootnote 117) If th proc dur
rk nly
departs fro pa t practic s or from p ac ic s
elsewhere in th juri diction, that bars 0
the f irneas of its imp ct. But v n a con.iat ntly applied practice pre ised on
racially n utral policy wou d not neg te a pl intiff's showing hrough oth r factors th t th
ch llenged practice denies minorities f ir
cc •• to th proc 8 •
enunerat d factors will of
While th
ca• • other f ctora will b
relev nt onea, in •
th
n b
th
most
indica ive of
all89 d dilution.
The c s s
i. no
requir
or that a
natrate, and the C
nt that any partieul r n
jo,,:ity of th
point on
ttee intends th t there
r of factor
way or tb
b
~roved,
other.
(Pootnote 118) The court.. ordin rly have not
used th
raetor., nor does th C
it~
inte d th
to b Wlec1, • a
antcal ·point
countingvice. Th failure of pl intiff to
tabli b any particular f ctor, i not rebuttal vi
c of noll-dilution.
th r, th
provi.ion r.quir • th court'. 0 r 11 jud
nt
ba.ed on the totality of eire
tanc sand
gui d by tho
r
vant factors in th
P rticular ca. of wh ther the voting str ngth
of ainority votera i., in the laDgu ge of
Fort.~n and Burn.,·
ntmized or canceled out.·
44
APPE DIX
THE ZI
NO. II
ACTORS
PRIMARY FACTORS:
is
uality of access of th
to the political proc s
1.
minori y
2. Wb
r past diacr in tion has th pr ent effect of
discouraging .inority •
rs t p rticipat·on in the
electoral process
3. Whether the CJOYe
of
tal policy W\derlying th
r districts is tenuous
It
4.
th
gover
tal body is r
ainority co unity
ponsi ve to th
eI G FACIORS:
1. his
of a larg
electoral district
2. A aajority vote requir
t
3. An anti-siogle sbot provision
4. Lack of re id
cy requir
subcUstricts
..
u
nts in geographical