rrRST T'RIAL
I
\ql \ - \£18;). A....D
\.).AJD~~l) ( \ 01'2..
)
l.£AV£5 .
BP.IE.FS
1
LfG//L
11l:.I10 RJIND«11
A.I1INTIFFS
/3RIEF/
I
PosT-1i<llJL
/979
(.39 L~I/Vt:..s)
I~
..... "'...
FeR mt S(lRTtlER't
U1B8OCI
DISTRICT Of
~.~-
'FMli C·'E 0
nlE lISltUl STurs DISTRICT OOURT
JOSEPHI.l~~~'lJ".JR..a.ERf(
DIVISI(l!f
TkBLE OF OOS'mfTS
FEa .., ', .. ~
n:v.s
BY
~'"
to
ISnlODUCnOlf
no
lIt.
RD'o Rlrr JOSm,nHo
,.
I\'.
ClVIL ",CTIat ~o CA_!-76-34
TKf: cnT (IF UlBll(!CI, ET AL o
"UlDI.TI'fJlJ:Z
1112 Tt)tl.l ",venue
Lubbock, TellAs 79401
m~\S
CI.RVo
1006 IJth Str-eet
Lubbodt, Tuu 79401
K\U Co HUJ,
1402 Tuas t..nnue
Lubbock, Tun 19401
Ifo.'fIELlloBESS(l!(
Po O. Box 40.);)
Lubbock, Tuas 19409
(
L\.'(£t..RnMl
NA."lCf FIREB\lCJI t..IlnllR
Metro Tower - Suite 150&
1120
8~dwaJ
Lubbock, TexAl 79401
RDID.T Po D\VIIlCJIi
Schoal of WV
Toal Tech Unlnral~
Lubbock. Tu. . 19409
V0
0
0
•
•
0
tHE APPLICABlE lAW •
•
0
•
•
0
•
•
0
'\\.'fTI..sINClE SHOT" \'OTtNC
0
0
•
•
0
•
•
0
•
•
POOVIStO~S
0
•
•
0
• •
0
•
0
0
0
0
0
•
•
0
•
0
•
Oio\.\'GE rOOM Pt..J'EJt BiJr.LLOTS TO ."'CHIlfE VOTING Sl'Sml
,.'PLICA1tOlf OF tHE lAW 10 tHE n.CTS
0
0
0
0
•
0
•
.0
SWIEI'DfG AlQI PDlw.srvz P.\ST DISCRIl1IXA.1tO!l' • • •
bo
nlE AOCIl1J:,A.1t: OF XIIlSEI BCTOflS • • • • • • • • •
•
•
0
0
0
•
•
•
9
0
II
•
•
•
0
0
0
0
Cllr.fCLUSlC!f • • • • • • • • • • • • •
CDl1trtCA1E
or
SElVIer; • •
0
•
0
'nit REQtlIJIED RDlDl'I" OF 10. SIXGl..E-JlfJ:lJ1'Jl DISntICT SYS'fD(
•
••
0
0
0
••
••
0
0
0
•
•
0
0
••
0
••••••
J
•
t.
0
6
••
•
0
0
0
0
••
12
18
••
UlmT • • • • • • • • • ••
1l'"IEDS ••
•
0
TlI! !XJ'DlT
n:sml)Kl •
•
0
e.
VI~"W
•
0
lACK OF fURNSI\'E:SESS TO
)JJ:~ORIn
1
0
111:
DISCRnII~T(lRr
0
0
eo
OF
0
o.
0
d.
I~'f'J!Jl:E.'tCE
•
•
24
•
•
••
25
0
•
••
.);)
•
34
0
0
••
o'
J6
0
••
J7
•
IS 11lE ID.'ln:D S'D.:ns DISTRICT OOIJRT
FOR THE
~ORTHE'Jl'f
WIl80Cl
.ul.•tantially a,ree upon the law .pplicable to this case.
The di.pute ia
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
abalt the .pplication of the 1101 to the f.ct. of thi. cue.
DI\'ISICft
.hall not acain state the appliable law in deuU, and iflltead reter the
AcooJ'dilllly. we
Court to our Trial Brief, vtdch we rnpettfuUy adopt and inccrporate henin
by refeN'nce.
In the nent the Defendant. Indiate at thh late date any
dhilcre_t cOIII:erni", the 1101 applicable
CIVIL ACnol(
11). CA.-S-76-J4
'_0
thia all, we .hall respond in
our npl,. brief to illQ' aucb di .....'reeroent.
THE CTTY OF WBBOCK, ET AL.
In this brief, _
shsll only '~lIriae the .ppliable hlt (rtferrinc the
Coun to our Tri.l Brief for. _ e coMpt"ehm.he cU.,cullicn of I\Ich 1101).
addrell points .pacifically inquired. about bT the Court "'rin, trial. arteI then
Thh post-trial brief h
SIolt:W.tted jointly
br
the ndlltifr. aM the
PlaintUf-Tnun'fllor in the above ""titled .. d n....hem
caUIe.
The Plaintiffa
disC:UII the applicaticn of the hOI to the fileta ntablbbed by the teati...,.
aJ'Id other .rldmce at tria11n this can.
ilnd Phintiff-Inttn'enor rdy IolJlOll the SIl_ art-til and althoritiea in thia
I.
~
bcept for certain objections to the relevance of _
pnsented by Plaintiffs and Plaintiff.Intenftlor .oiced
Proposed
P~Trial
of the erldence
bJ DefenhrlU in the
Order il!Id at trial. there iI apparently no dilp.lte about
tile law applicable to this cale.
Plaintiffs ..d Plaintiff-Int.,.,enor ha••
nated the applicable law 1ft th.ir joint Trial Brief, DefendanU ftled no
trial brief of their own and did ttOt otheNis. uke i .._
nuetWftU of law _de
br
lIlth ilIQ' of the
Plailltiffs and Plaintiff-Intenenor 1ft naintifra'
and PlaintUf-Inte"enor'. trial brief, . d ao we take it that. aU pudes
..
-1-
)
Proof of an a"rept, of JUdi factors ,endt. aft infernee of tbe cU.....
II.
nm: APPLtCABIZ
lAW
erillinlto". intent required
bJ
Wuhtnrtm ...
the Fifth Circuit said in lfn,u! Sid"
The .t."dAre! by wtdc:h to j\MI&e the mllstitlltionallty of the prul!1\t
Aeeordlnll"
sr_hlll of deedn,; City Council .e.bua in Lubbock h
r""nlt in
Vbtu..,
Pnh
426 U.S. U9 (1976). II
5n F.2d 209. 211 (5th Cir. 1918).
it II not fteeeuary to pro...e that the s,.ate- of at-lar,e electlonl
IlCl"ur,
in Lubbock _. orl&inall,. enacted with 1I1serllli.natory p.lrpolS, and in rejeethl
412 U.S. 7.5S (1971), as explic:aud i" ;i_r... Hslstshm
.e!!.IIS!!. '.let.
Cir. 1973), Afftd 011 other ,rounds
l!Ar,hall. 424 U.S. 6J6 (1976). IlrtclaT
~ 554 r.2d 139 (5th Cir.
485'.2d 1297 (5th
I dt,'. Irpaent to the eorttrary, the FUth Circuit said, 1ft Boldt" y
Carntl1 hrhh SeppI 1M'" T
Ikltrl of SUDSriHn
un).
tlpbU, AlaM, 511 F.2d :US, 2.46. (5th Cir. 1918):
of Mion CwnSJ
InnO<:lmtl,
fo~lated
City of t!onM LC!9hlan,. 456 , .Supp. 460 (V.D..... 1918)
Cin pf
hsld that an
plu that perpetuates put intentional dherildnatim
c:eft. 4etded. 434 u.s. 96fI (1978).
11 unconstitutional.
-'\lsberty..,
''!ld!!a.
In!nt!1 It /J11 F2d
7tJil.
we noted that a plan neutral
(notice
,t it. inception _,. n"en.Mbll b t _ unconsdtvrlonal wheft It II IUolntalned
of apped rUed O«obt'r 19, 1978). and rebtecl <:aHI.
Under thOH e...,., the
for the JlUrpolS of deyaluatin, the ...otes of Blackl.
Coun, look n
the history of official nodal dhcri-.il\l.tiall and other fa ...
i f th, ,"",au of the eYldence under the
ii!!!!u:
We allO delllOl'lltrated that
criteril indlc.ates 1I1lution.
of racial disc:rlmnatiOO'l in the polltieal \lIdt. lll"ol't'ed. tile lack of .cec..
then the hf,rence arisel that: the plln II beinl _inttilled vith requisite
to the poUtlcd proeu. by the _noritt,. Invohed. the uek of rupon,heintent."'
nnl to the need. of Ilinoritin. the pn.clusion of
err~h,
the S-n of _"aridn til the politieal proc:euu of th.
puttdpation on
~lt,.
(S71 r.2d It 2046).
Onee a plaintiff 'Itablishe. pe,....at ... e
a~
lweepin, actl of dherilinatl.on
becaliU of
in the put eonltttutin, 1I11\1tlon of the II1noritle.'
ri&ht
to ... ote, the de-
the exhtmce of put dherillinadOll. the uhtetlee of hrce eleetion dbtric:u,
fendant. thm h..., tbe burien of .hwiftl. "
the require-ot of ... jorit,. you and anti-li",b shot ...etci", (or the ldnd of
equi....lmt to that reprumted
bJ
the Lubbock Cit,.
e-en
election 1,.lt.), and
~
\
the absmee of an,. requi..-nt that can1l1daul Ihe 1ft and.
nI'l
II1norlth. preaerltly ha,.e equal IcO'"
' " hanl
pt 'yp"nhpn pf flip"
,,""nUIl ni4mcs
to the poUtieal procelleJ.
CcerS! Mt,tl,,,pd.
that the
~
SS4 r.2ci U9, 144-US (Sth
f . - .. rtlcular
Cir. 1911), cU't. dmied 434 U.S. 968 (1918).
&fllvaphled sub-diltrleU.
Proof of an IlCIrec,te of __ of tII..e f,eton
eaubl1shu the fact of 1I11lltion of the ...otl", at""&th flit
the
Sup~
Coun.'. ded.t. In Vb"'!
it 11 "ot fteee"l". to
pI"O"fl
""'fltst
~
_Ile.
ue". OIIe of tMM faeton in
rifth Ciradt ~tecl1n it, dedli_ In
I1BIK
11Ie .1eYftl
m...ritia.....
rlfth Ciradt b
nell ca_, as tile
which
do .at c..,nit\lte an
IldlIIl
edlau.ti,.~
an .. followsl
1. We 1llack had __ l1eeted. to •
(485 r.2d It 1.1)5).
()
->-
~t.,
lilt Iceol'di",
to the ease. nor tbe a:clutd,.. el~t. wtdeh can b, eonsidered. Ulted
it <:lear tlat
0lMtty
rifles.
bJ
the
2.
Re-tention of the poll tllX aa • requisite to votinl until 1966.
3.
Retention of • Ute-ncr ust until 1966.
4.
COnditionin& of t'rimary pa"-ic:lpatlon u~ • phqe of
tn.
Durinl trill of the case, the Court inquired about the nanti-sin&le shot"
pa"-y loyalty.
provision in so- election codes, snd the ,pplicability of the law rep.rd.i1l4l:
S.
Prop<'"-y requirenmts for candidatel lind lupcorvilol'1l.
such provisions to the facts of the instant case,
6.
Desir,n"tion of the ool.lllty for the- Ule of fC'dC',..l votil\&
7.
8.
9.
A.n anti-sinCle shot provision precllldea a \'Ottr in a _lti-tarldidate
res:i,tnrs.
electi. f . - votil\& for fewer than the nulIber of offices belnl .,oted for,
Disqualification of certain blade cAAdidatri by the cou"ty
it ,pplies only where there 11
C'lection ccmO.uion.
flllleti_1 equivalent of the '1stell used. in Lubbock in wldch the ca"didatel
Efftct of a lower sod_(XlftC*!.c 1nel upon the black'.
..at "-In at-larr;e for a p.rticular place lIot related to a"y &eo&raphlcal art!
ability to participate.
of the city.
A.
hip
rate of block .,.,c:in&.
h
Beer y
110
place rC'quirftlC'nt, but it is virtually the
United StAtU, 42S U.I, 130 (1916), Hr. Jllltice Marshall,
10.
Various elKtonl .ethani. . .
dissentinl, c_ud. upon the "antl-Ji"lle shot" provisia'l1
n.
Lack of nsponuvene-II to the neC'd.s of black reddent ••
shot' nale is a
~~t
The FUth Circuit specifically noted aJld (Xlftlidered the prnence of .ute-wide
for a, IIIlftJ candidate' a. the!"! are sc,ts to be filled,
factors, lC'plly bowId to be present in a"1 local political lUbd1vhio", i"
.,ater . .y be lnte,,"ted. in
natuati"! auch factors, ill United St,tu
Cpunty
Mlnissippi
V
BoArd pf SUJ)f;nhp" pf Fpmrt
as wll."
onl, (IfIe of the candidates,
(425 U.S, at 160, note 21),
_jorlty-...ote requJ.~t as wll:
S71 F.2d 951, 9SS <Sth Cil'. 1978).
It is vell-set.tIed la" that sinpe-ber districts are to be Uled by die
"The 'antl-sifllls
that in allni1ti_ber district the .,oter . .at .,ate
Thu"
althouch the
he -.aat vote for others
Hr. Justice Marshall explained the
"nIe . .jority-vote. requi~ is a Nle
that the wi... er of an electi. _lit ha..... _jority of the vote.
Thus, ill •
District Courts, rathcor than . .lti..--ber or llind districts in Innti", court-
ncc i"volvin& three or Mre candiutu, a pluralit, of ...otel'll caMet elect
ordered. relief in case, of this lIature.
their caad.idate,
2.491, 2.497 (1978);
"..hilln v
Hmll
CgnnU
T
VhF", Lipacseb. _U,I,--, 98 S. Ct.
JsbnMlII, 402 U.S. 690, 692 (1971).
410 U.S. 3lS, 133 (1973);
&s.l1al
Chllen V Heier, 420 U,S, 6J6,
If !to CIlItdilbte wi. . , _jori~, there 11 • lWI_ff election."
(425 U.S. at 160, ftote 21),
" ~ If .,udea If the fifth Ciralit Court of "ppeals ha.,e referred.
to the anti-dn.&1e mot pI"O'dal....
639 (1976).
-....
In !"stS! Sidn
-...
571 F.2d 3J9 (5th Cir.
1918). the Cour't defined the anti-.sln~h shot provhiOll as followtt
"There Is no .ntl-stncle ahot "'otlnl reatrietlan.
A pro\1.alon Nquirinl thst eseh elector cast vote. for s.
n:qulrd to run for positions by pllce."
r.L1.ny candlll.'ltes aa the" s" position. is known ss
tian.1 «juiv.lency un be e.dly underatood.
alnJ:le shot nile.
U\
snti-
of votes tkat the 1IIJ\0rity candidate _.t Cet in order to win;
]I;
candidaua nIl thea.
If there a"
]I;
dent'Clinated the "single-ballot-plurality"
voti~
~appor'tlO!P£Tlt
R. Dbon. Dreos!'!tle RepC$'tnt"tion'
i" LUI ""d 'rUtin
~nd
,",tarIm
.505 (1968); SUn, Rtbtlpn
tbe Pun systM to the
Appol"tl!l!'!¢ to a Led.lAthe District
(1964).
didate.
oUien.
'l'U5ll:!tr
aJste-.
at
Rsprs-
pf $lEftl
17 v. Pol Q. 74'Z
An aMI-alnlte ahot nale InYaUdate, .11 bd10ta
that do not &how "Olea for.a Il&nJ' eal\didatss a. there are
positions.
Hinorit,. 'll)ter, can be diaaoh'antlCN. by autb
a nils because- it _,. force th_ to yote for
n~nority
candidlltea. thus depreciatinc the relative position of
-.inority candid.aus.
(Sn F.2d at U7, note 10).
'nIe antl-sil\&le ahot provision haa been reprded in a lIUlIbar of ca..a •• the
functional equhalent of the place .,.atell.
..
City of t!onrn.,
For eJliWple, the Court in
Lguiphnll. 456 F. Supp. 460 (V.D. lao 1978)
With. place I'fllUire.ent, ..t.n.ritle. QIInot, by votlnll: only for one
candidate. deereaae the _bel' of TOtea that auc.h • candidate nSS'ds: to vin.
This deetonl .dl_ 11
~
however. the
anti-single shot prorlsiOtl pn:yenu -.inoritlea 11'01I vDltllll only for me c.'UI-
leeta vl.nnC'rs by nnldnl all eandlutn in the order of
the n...aber of TOtea they recd..e.
This fune-
Votera' .bility to vote only
for one of ,everal CIIndidates in at-larse election. can deeruse the nUllber
An anti-single shot nih has appU-
ution only in the context of an dectonl sdle-e that at-
the top
Ilovenr, candidates sre
(456 F.Supp. at 466).
~
(notiee of
appeal filed October 19. 1978), ..id, in dhcusstnl "mhandnl factors,'"
altered the election law of a coyere:el SUte ill rfen a
n.
n J72).
DuriPll trhl of this cu~, the witn"ss Hub, llerc:acl.o te.tified that ,he
",u not contacUd by D"pllnm.ent of Justice "pn-senhth'e. abcut the use of
da,.. kloN the ebetioR
"otln!: _chinu in Lubbock IIntn four (4)
(99 5.(,.'(.
be: ,hom the br"Olleleat possible acope, anel inellcat.ecl t.hat. an,. actiCIII vhich,
..,."
in which .be
"'"01" ,.,.'.-
The SlIprt:lJle Collrt indiestecl that in oreler to effectllate: the articu-
other t.hillla, woulel IInelennine t.he efferthene.. of 'latera allould be con-
rielerecl t.o be: coven-cl by the A.ct (99 S.Ct. at. J72).
n.e Su.p~ Court eli~
r.ln IIn,uc;cu,fllll,. (or the Lubbock Cit)' C-cil. due to the City of Lubbock',
cuaseel other caae. to the:
hl.lure to &lve the ninety (90) lI.,. notice ropqulrtd. by law c,,"cemln, the
tblot the CC*Ildttee Re'porta auted. vithollt qual1fiestiCIII. that -EJection S
PIlI!
effeet ill ita opinion in ~ aftclnatecl
.l1l
eNft!:" (re. pa~r ballot, to the lise of .. type of "fodn& _ctdne; the Cit)' of
of the Act requll"u reYin' of
Lubbock pn only tvmty-elcht (28) . y ' , notice. i" .~rent YiolatlOft of the
the covered jllrhelictiCIII.- cit ill' S. Rep. Ko. 9~295, p. 15 (1975); M.R. Rep.
VOTI"~ Rilhts Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. I 1911c (Ms. HU'Q.do tutifid
lIo. 9 .....196. p. 8 (1975). U.S. Cocle ~. (, Acillin. ~ewa 1975, p. 781.
D:\rninr; of Janu.ary 15, 1979).
fhto
diuud the .i,nific;;ance of such.
e-n
Oft
the
inqgind ~her the f"OU"' ha... 1ft-
dlan,,,
t..n"u
r .... ,.per
to _
fo,. of
at .J1J-nJ).
AceordiA&1,., _
votire cflan&n prior to iJopl-..ntad_ by
(99 S.Ct.
thillk t1M: chan&e fro- paper ballot a to a _chine
.,..t_ of vatint: ~el be: _ch • chall&e coyeI'ecl by the Act. particularl,. in
_ell!ne YOtins sy.te-, ,,,4 \lhrther sud! • d1*",f: ee-!.tlt\lte• • tMlolI_ in a
view of Ha. Hereaclo'a fUrther
-nWlcLu'll, pnctlce. or proeedurt with respret to .otlft.c'llll'lder 42 U.S.C.
aclecpaatelJ aplainecl to tbe ".te.... anel ......orit.,. .oten felt eliacourse" and
• 1971e at
~ed•
lntl_elatecl at the Pft'apee:t of ht.vinc to lUe such a .,.at_ arlcl ..,. not bye
"otinl Ricbu Act to chanael fro- paper ballaltS to _
.
If _
sort of _ddne
diaeo'"r pcb a esM, _
_aecl 01" the new
ahall aMse
t1M: Court.
The esse of Dpucherty Cczunty
ct9ma Ikerd
at
Edugti.... J
VMts
U.s.
- ' 99 S.Ct. 368• .JU (l978), iJlltic:atea. ~er, that Coft&re:.. intended to
reach any chanin that alter the eleetion law of a «rrered atate. rfen it
111 a _1101" _,.;
the A.ct, _
the Court. saiel:
t.hat the nn' .chine .,.at_ wa not
yoted to the .... at..t that they woulel han i t the f~1" .,.ate- hael be",
•'e have 10C.llted no case de.Uft& with tbe po..ible appliutlOfl of the
COllI'Itinl or _rldJl& of ballota.
teat.i~
onl1
"'fter c:aft_aa1Jl, tbe leehlathe hiator,' of
CClnducled thn Con.&re:aa _ t 'to nactl any atate enaee-ta .....dI
.,.at_
hael bem .4equately uplaiJlecl ba tt.-e for the ebet:lon.
v.
,\Pi'LICA nlY.'t OF
I.
SlIfTJ'INC AJln
i'ER\'~SlVE ~T
DlSCRDIINUIO!f
nil: lAW TO THE FACTS
The e'fidence prelented b:r Plaintiffl and. Plaintiff-Intervenor ill tlIh
We shall dhc:uu the
"ppll~tion
of the law to the faeu In e'lidence in
this case under the &menl hudin,. IUCluted
br
cue utlblhh.1 I hiltory of lweepiftl and pern.lhe racid dlsc:rt.ination
the case law, in order to
R&dnlt blackl Ind .lexicnn-.'lneriCllna in Lubbock, Texaa.
The Court hIS uken jucl.icid notice of the n__nul lutut.1 IIld Texu
assist the Court in dettnrdnlllc the evidnu:e ntabU,h1"c udl of the _tten
which Rlst be ",tablhhed
in this liti""t!"".
b:r
conltitutiond prorlaionl h
Plaintiff. and PlalntUl-Inttrtmor to prnail
Initially, we respeetfuU,.
~rer
KnlIO","dwD. filed on Ucc:ellber 14, 1978, dlri", the trial of thh eale. tor
an IP.lttmded discussion of the -.anner in which the Diltriet.
~n..
political aubclh1.liona (Plaintiffa' Exhibit "a. 30), lind of th _ n u l
atltUt.1 and Tex-I conatitutianal prorlaionl ill the State of Tual that illlpaSed
k ..e utilised
a vide varlety at fol'llls ot ncbl cl.iscr1l11nltion upon black c:lthenl (naintUf.'
the fActs utabUshf"d. in evidence when -.kin, their findl",. or fact In ellln
of this nature, ."d _
~.peetruU,.
adopt and In(A)rporate bJ reh""u t!\l.t
Trial lte-.aranch. in the pre'f'ftt brief.
cussed the asn of Whit"",
Court hMdlecl it
JlI.l!. 115lI!.
R"u'trr
Gown y
&JId I,u,brm '" City or lionrpe
In that Trial
~randwl.
_
Ezldbit
line clis-
Lwhhn.
) 4 ) ' .Supp.
I.-e acher thin", avc:h atltutu and Ta. . c:onlitituional
ne.oc:ratic priury, fre. Yhidt black citisena of Tex-a were uc:lUlSed (nlindffa'
Ex!I1bit Wo. 3».
704 (V.D. Tex. 1972),
456'.Supp. 460 (V.D. Wo.
"0. 15).
provishna created IIld enfarced I poll tax require-ent: tar "ati., IIld I white
412 U.S. 155 (1973) . . . tile Dhtrict
lamE'
the Stlte of Teul that deprived blackt of
_anineful participation in the political proc:UUI of the State and ita
the Coun to our Trial
And Tual. t.hrou,p. ita atltuUI and ita StaU Constitution,
Created and enton:ed 'firtuall,. .YeJ'7 repl"ehendble fanl of racid discriMina-
19111)
tion lIIiflrt black citisenl f_d in lilY ot the other Southern Stlt.S of the
(notice of Ippeal filed October 19, 1978), be<:auu we think that thia Court
.lacka wre dl,ert.inlted apia,t. by Teu.a lUte lav, in
I:In find pidance frca thOle cal" in dullne with the Ibmdant .'fi4ftlce Pft-
United Stat...
lented here b:r Plaintiffl Ind naintiff-Int.".enor,
educ:.atiOPl, parkl. vaitill& . - . drittkiq f_talfl',
II
thil Court Ippli.1 the
libnrl.l. t"'~ to -.n'J.
Ipplic.able lav to the flctl of the preaent cue.
acti" of tM
lta~.1
Md..,. acher vayl.
II
relt~a,
ruuurnnts.
thh Caw't'l judidal
and To. . c:onltitlrti"",l prorld0l11 CClIltabled in nain-
ttffa' ExhIbit "0. 15 eaubUlhel.
Althouch this VII not leereCltion b:r the
Cit,. of Lubbock I' I ...udpaUtT. it _a
-pine
IIld pc:rv...in IUte-vid.
racial Hlftptiaa and dilc:riId.Mt1ofl apinat blatkl. and it nece"lrily .pplied
o
-11-
Mly ifI the polluc:al _bdlrlaiOPl of the City of Lubbock.
ataWaIted by the t n t t - y of the vitnellu Harold
Furthel'1llClre, II
Cha~, !leY. I.. W'. Vilsan,
T. J. PaUcrSOll,
Ceor&~
Scott,
Ros~
Wilson. Celludo earn. Liane! CaUndo,
I,
fo...... rd to a till~ as "cent as the "peal of the neid dherbd.nlltian and
'l'fOptl'L:\ll DtoLem, Dr. 'ndru Tijerina, JOl'l~ Moreno, and oth~r., vMt~ citi:r.~1II
ucreptfon statutes and ftD.. eon.titlJticnal prvridona aet forth 111 Pldntiffs'
of Lubbock, Tens, mpsecl in what th~ District Court In ~ u~ "Open,
bl\ibiu 'fos. IS and 210.
fl.1osrant, Url,opl-.i,tiC.ltf'd,
purpos~f'ul
Thh
el~cttd ~p"uftlt.th~.,
T~I
law,
UJ'Itil into the urI,. 1910a (Plaintiffs' Eddbiu !fOI. IS and 20).
(0156 f.Supp. at 463-464) in Lubh:lck, fVCI.I, asdut both bladt eithen. and
Thf' City of Lubbock, throu&h itl dul,.
S - of thne "da! aq,reption and di.srl.-f.nation
statutes "",re not I"rpealed.. and. COM:i,...ed ill eCfect; a. a pan ot
dhcrUdJl"t!an- II "tbe 1-. tiM patte","
1~
hi.tory of aweepillC and Pf!rvuhe radal dilerildnltian and
IeCrelation a"inat blacks and Nexic:M"""-eritana in Lubbock, Te:xa., produced.
1II.trve:ted
the residenthl ptIttern. ahown by Uatlaony of Dr. Tijerina and the 1913
its Cit,. Attornt'Y to prePi'1"e "" ordina"c~ _kinl it a cn- tor bladt persan.
to live in any part oC the dt,. other than an area de.i&nated in the ordinance,
ordinance (Plaintiffl' Exhibit !'Co. 2), .. de nanable to the Court thrauCh
and such
the e%hlbita to th~ .tlpulationa In this cs..e (nalntlffa' Exhibit :fo. 5,
M
ordinance was dul,. prep"red by the City Attol.\'1. and enacted into
bw, lif' submit the evidence .how., in 191J (Pb.intttf.' Elddbit !fo. 2).
that
onl.inMlC~
was eYer Cull,.
(:!'llct~d
or not, it
.peak.
yol~a
Stlpulatian Exhibit. A. throuch D and pp). Blaeka are concentrated in one IlIlIll
tftlether
ceocnpMc area of the City of Lubbock, and thfl7' are plainl,. and unconttl.tabl,.
about tbe
__ ~piJllt and pervasive racial d.hcrbdnatlon that exi.ted In the Cit,. of Lubbock
can«tltrated; ill that area becau.e of the _epinc and penui ye nchl d.i.-
in an "Clpn, na,rant, unsophhtics.ud., p.u'Pos~ful- Ma1\nd' at th~ tiM it ....
erltd.nation utd N:1I'Clltlon pneticed 'Ialnat the- in Lubbock, Te:xa •• fn:- the
proposed.
earliest history of the Cit,. of Lubbock.
w~
point out for the
ti_ hi.tory of
~pinl
«uidanc~
of the Court that our f'Yidenee of the 1011II
becl.uH of
and ptnasiYe neial d:iscri.a1nati_ ap.1nst blades MId
v!:y
Ku:i~ri"". ill
and. pern.ahe racial d.hc:ri.-f.nad.on aca1nat the. ill ~bbosk,
The 101'1 hi.tory ot _epinc and pertuiu neid diasri_",uon a"ia.t
tuti...". or other eYid.ense to contest or "but the a::I.stellct
the black .....
of auc:h neial ctisai.ld.nation, or the filet that it .... _epl.nl and perndY.
acdnst t:oth black. and
-pin.c
feu., fn:- ttl. earliest hi.toI7 of the Cit,. ot Lubbou.
HexicaJt-<l\lle.ricans loOM not smb,ud by the Cit,. of Lubbock. and the Ddmcbnu
have not pit in
Si-.1larl,., Merl""-AMric.au are con-
c:entnted 1ft cl.rly ddined. ceocnpbic arua of the City of Lubbock. Tex....
He:xl~caa cithena
01 Lu.bboe:k, TeDa. pradused. the C(:!'ler-
all,. 1UbUaad.&rd. l_nb&e hGudq f_d in thoH PDnians ot the Cit,. of
Lubbock. fe- ••
Lubbock in "'-ich auch "'norith. are _centnted (note te.t~ of Sister
Such neid d:iacri...nation a"inst blade. and Hmc.an-oAllerlcs.na reache. . .
hI" bade into the past of Lubbock, fea., aa ane is able to 10. bdeed be.ct to
Reciu Foppr).
the Coundinl of the Cit,. of Lubboc". (note telti-.ny of Dr. tijeriftl) and N"a
boeh .tnorldea
Such d.laerildJr.ation Md aelI'Cption haa~ the _hera ot
f~
obtaiJdnc ad.tqliIte eclLlcadon., joba. (note ttlatimon,. of
o
-13-
-14-
Isidro Guticrrn. in reference to the city sanitadorl Itrikes) decf'l'it nei~bor­
cquallty of access at the pre.ent tille.
hoods, and Illo'l.ny other tH",s durin& the period of open, naCrant radal legre-
standi", hiltory of svecping IJId pervllSive rac:ill1 dhcrilll1natior'l af\d legrega-
gation and discril.dn:r.don in Lubbock, Tuaa
tion again.t blacks and 'lexiCllll~erieanl in Lubbock, Texas, the Pillintiffa
(note testilllony of Dr. Tijerina
and Plaintiff-Intervenor in this caat ~ have the burden of shOld", that
Md Ilarold Chatman).
Plaintiffs ;'Ind Plaintiff_Inurvenor subtdt that the testi-.ony of the
the effects of Po'\1t discrimination are ,till pretent.
vitncsses Ilarold Chatlllo"Ul, Rev. ". W. Wnson, T. J. Patterson, Georee Scott,
Rose liilson,
Inst~ad,
the burden is
nov 011 the Defendants to provide ,,,bstantial evidence that such effects have
Con:do Ga.":!., Lionel Galindo, !tepthaU ~Leor'l. Dr. Andres
been dislip;ated. flnd Defendants have not earried thOlt burden.
Tijerina. Jorge ~:orcno, and other witnesses who lived in Lubback durl", the
The IIOIt De-
f...,.dants have done vith respect to thil ~rtieuhr alpect of the cale is to
shO'll' that the leea1
~quire-.entl
.....eeping and pervasiv... nchl discrillination snd segre,ati"", sgainst blacks
IlCIIIber ne the
with relpect to an racial and ethnic croups, but equality
and ~lvdcan~m",rlcans in Lubbock. Texas, and th ... continuing effects of the
of acce.. involve. . .ch IIIOre than the bare leeal requll'6lents to file for and
UI!l('. all without contest or rebuttal fras the ~ff!lldants.
nan for office.
p;lst
s('veral decades. lUIIply establishes the existence of the history of
This bein, so. the ~f...,.dants hne the burden, in the presmt cale, of
showl""
by substantial cvidf!llce, that the Ilinoritiel pruently
ta'u
lame
to file for and run for office of City Council
If we a . _ for the lake of are-t. however, that the nalntiffJ and
fiaintlff-Intervenor have failed to sh_ past dhcrimnation sufficiently se-
eq\Ial
access to the politi~ proccsses of the ~ity. As the Fifth Cir..uit ex-
vere to constitute ".-weeplnc ...d penalive" discrllllination, the burden would
pressed it in ~ . "'nce plaintiff established fl put record of racial
be _ Plaintiffs and. nflintiffMIntervenor to _
dlscriadnation and official W1responldveneSl \otlich requires the conclusion that
eatablbh that the effectl of past dilcrlldnatior'l are still prelent, Ind it
at least until a Ihort nUlllber of years put thf!1 had bem denied equal acce..
11 relpectfully subdued that nalntlffs and nalntiff-Intervf!llor han cOIle
to the political proeeSlu of the county
fell to the defendants to
calle
&1" dty.
fo~rd
in the prelmt ea-iJ, it thm
fONllrd vith mdence that enou8f1 of die ind-
vith alC:h evidence in
.~ance.
forward vith evidence to
li:\IIltrOUI black and Hmean-.\aerlean
vltne..e. who teltlflell about conditions of palt raelal dilcrllllination in
dentlofthepasthadbef!ftr'ClllOYed,andtheeffeetsofpastden1alofaccell
Lubbock .lao teltifiell in V.riOUI _YI that the effects of sud! past dls-
dhsipated, that there was pruently equality of acce... "
crildlllltion Ire proeleftt Itill.
145).
Deff!l'ldants have not
CCDe
(SSt r.24 at 144-
-,s-
'!'bere';"l telti_y frOlll .mberl of both
"nority croups tNt their ~ a are still afraid to oppo.e the City Offi_
fOfVllrd vith substantial mdence to 1h00000that
enough of the incidents of past diacrillination have been ...-ved to pt"Orlde
(
In vielt of our evidence of the 1011«;
dall in _roul inatlrlcel, e.c., testi...,. of T. J. 'aUerlon, Ilarold ChatlMn.
()
-,
..
City
,cO"le~t.
that tht'1 hue little .ill_.teell, lUld that tbey han blat
I"
,li,ht confid,""ce i" the possibtUtJ ll...t the City \CIuld re.pond fa.onbl,.
to any of thdr need. ",en if ,uch "«da W~ pft.mted
Ceorce Scott and Dr. Tijerina). Dr. Tijerin. tutHied t\lrther that the evil
effectsofrachldncrilllinationirtwbbock.resttlIYel'J"D.lchpresmt in
the IIlind, and hurta of
.:exlcan~.rican c1thert••
TIler.
w..
prhe a vhole
~ple
te.ti.,..,. to
~l
eleYeft elelletlU li.ted by the Court vhidl. vhile
_~
a"~cate
artd with alldlar ehlller'lta
1Il3ke Ollt the fact of dilutiOl'l of the yotin& .tre",th of Illinoritiu.
factor. are .et forth.l!ll![l
The!!..daa:
It pa,cu 4-S. and need not be repeated here.
The
.Ii1!:Ii.la
faaora. and eltllblilhe. lC'Ven.l .dditional. closel,. related f.ctor. of the
kindellllMn.tedirt!1.l::k!,a..
Ob'rloull,.. to de-
or ethnic II"IlUP of .dequate edu.cation, hourinl, poUdClll
• quality. and otht"r sicnific:a!tt llpe«.. of
ther"
rridertce in the pre.ent elle e;t.bli.h. at lellt .ix of the eIeym
the same dfect vith rCSJ)'"a to blaeic. chism. of Lubbodl. by the witnellU
ltarold Clu.tmn. T. J. ,.tter.on, Ceo",e SCOItt. and othera.
!1!:tu:I
not con.titutirt& a" exhall.the UIt, in the
(Sote t",tillOn,. of
tretot-mt for decade• •~
A. in
I1.I:U.at
no llinorit,. .-bel' hal eYer b«n elected to the Lubbock
Citye-dl ill the entire Mlto.,. ol the City (naintHfs' Emiblt !fo. S•
StiPilation. !fo•• J3,~ 34). A. in!iJ::l1uL there was ~notion throuchOllt
Teu. of the: poll tax l't"qIIi~t for yotin. (I'Wrrtitfl' E:ddbit 1(0. 20).
of a
f~
n.tion.
year. by the ell_nation of offici.l,
U Jm.
'ecrep.tion IItd dbcriJd-
The ey(dmce before this Court in the prt"unt ca.e
.ffi~th·e1y
sh_.
that the dfea. of palt radal dhcriaination haye not betll sufficientl,.
There wa•• ill ,ddition. II iIr
~ratic:
~
Oft
the "electoral -echani'" of the vtdte
f .... tII\1ch black penOll. were wholl,. excluded by fex. . .t,-
tute (Plaintift.' £:ddblt !fo. XI).
dissipatedtoallO'ltequalaceeaatothepolitiealprocclieiorthe~h,.
by blacks and Held.<:An.-Alierican••
pri_..,.,
A. in
.IU.I::!£KX.
thert" 11 an ad..erae effect
yoti", and partid,.tiOll itl the electoral procell cau.ed by the lower
.odo-e_ _ c: l"el or the buck and Hexican",,",-ric:-.n "nority ,roup. in
Lubbodt (!fote
1JI
~
or
Dr,. John_ and Tijerina ud Father Kalf.. nn).
Id.&h
deer- of polarised Yoti,,& by n.ce and ethUc
te.~
then b
•
,"'p (Dr. J _ _'. u . u - y and .-tudy. PlaintLtf.' £:ddbit 11'0. 6, ,nd
~ of .... Mercado, """" Sa.lJ..rta....d Joe 'fallin).
tben: 11 a ladi:
or
test~·
And rin,U,.. II in ~ .
".pon.i••••• to the "et"da of mnoritb.
(1ft
the part or
the Cit,. of lubbock. itl elected orrtdal., artd ita .ppointed offichh and
_l'I'_
.
-,
in the Stllte of TUII, and the 'eYfllth bieh..st Infnnt .crullty
nte for a city of Itl .he in tbe ..ntire United Statu (Sote
ustt-1y of Dr. Orr aM PlaintUra f r.Jddbiu ~o •• II and 14).
In addition to th.. IlbuY..
~
th..r .. ar.. additicoPld factor. of the
facton pre'fllt in th.. inatant ca.e.
s~
5.
CUUf'd by the Fifth Circuit lind the Dtttrict Court. in oth..r rtd.1strlctil\l
usu. Aeain, while the... factors
listed in Iti",,,,,,,.
I.
they.~
.~
f.cility new utilhed by the City of l.4obbock to hOll... itl
prilOl'l..ra and. fonltrly used to . _ extent for that purpo....
not fUctly the ..... a. those
quite .iallarl
aM to inUlnte the .dIoob of the Lubbock Independent
Sd\ool Dtatrict. the United Statea hl*rtaent of Ju.tice
lubbock :t.dopttd. or ""YI'd. tOVllrd "doptlnl• • 1923 City ord1n"nce
IIl.lkine it a criminal off..n." for black. to live in anYl*rt of
haYin, been a party in both allch a."•• and the J'laintUra
the City of Lubbock fJ[Cfpt c:eruin deaipt..d arul. and the
han", pre'failed ia both IlIdl use•• with rdid' " ..b, ,ranted
by thit Court (~ote ,laiatUra f Ezhiblt 110.
f'Xhtmcf of SIIth onUnanc.. _. knowI to both blacks ud Hmc.&1'l-Aaui canl liYi"" in Lubbock (J'laintiffaf F.dtibit It'o. 2. and.
2.
Two rec.....t fedenl laltSUiu have bHn litle.ted in thi. COlirt.
to correct radal .",re,.tion in the Lubbock County J.il. a
kind I I tho... ...,..tioned and dis-
6.
n).
The Unit I'd. Statea Air Force. throush ita dedll'lated npre.enta-
testilllOny of Ceoree Scott and. Lionel Clllindo).
tive• •t Reelt Air Force Ba.e. TUII. ntar the CitJ of Lubbock,
Car.. of the Lubbock City C...et ....,. it subltandal"d (J'lUfttUflf
ha. lIad. to b e _ artively iaYol;Yed. in illY...tillti", co-plaint.
E.xhtblt l"o. 7 IlJ\d testi..". of Iloae ViI... and Oelle Oained 1ft
of ncial cU..crlain.tioft a,abut black and Hexican"",,-rican
the forwtrly nddly Hlrel.ttd arul . .Inuin" for blllcQ
aI!lIlIb.. n
and
Hfxia~r1call'.
of the ""Ued State. Air Fono:e by budne..... and club.
in the City of Lubbock in tht laat f...., Jur•• a"d f_d it
and nchl Ie,re,ation. both a. to bladel
necn....,. to . .liat al.noritie. here ia lI"in, .doption of a
yl'an
l.
.'o.
p1blic K~tiOft' on!i.nance to end. ..,ch nchl di.ulaiaatioa
til black and
Hu::ica~...rican
area. of the city. II _I*red
W'ith the .rea. where tbe whiu _jority liYea (!tote tt.tl..".
...
110.").
T.
ladal dilcrlld.nation
_UftU.' ift Lubbodl:.
TUIII. down to the
of TOII1 Refe., Sister !techa Ind Oon...lo O.~).
pnMl'lt• • • • ltabUaMtl by the telt~ of _rout v1tnf'l.....
Public health Ifrvi«. pNl'rlded by the City of Lubbock. rudtiftl
ia daba. louJ. buaiae...... relt_rant •• depart_t .tore., and
.nd 'ervin, prt.-rily bllck. and
(
(!fote tellt~ of Major Yinc. HiCllcd u6 nalat.irr.' bMbit
Houlll\l is of • l _ r yalue fond is ,enerally of • lowr quality
MeJdca~ria",. are ..,~
standard. W'ith Lubbode haYin, the Mlbeat infant aortalit)" rate
-Jl>-
-1"
othu fu:ets of life in the c _ i t y (:cote t ...tillOnJ of tlajor
11.
Blacks and Hexican.......ric:an. hue repeate4ly tried to vi"
electiOl'l to the City Council, a"d have l1""ya failed, bei",
Hicucci, Luciano Peres, Jorr;e Horeno and Ceor'le Scott).
overvhe1Jled in eadl a"d e...ery electiOll by the radaUy
polarised yotin, of the vldu IUjority (~ote Plaintiffs' ExMbtt ~o. 6 n"d naintiffl' Exhibit :fo. 5, StipllatiOl'l £X~
until this Court «ranted relief in federal litiptioll to
correct the
S"IIt,
hiMt H, and te.th,OfIy of )laria Mercado, Joe Yaldn,
and which is nquirinc Coun-ordered budn&
Plaintiffs' Exhibit
~o.
n, and teatiMoll)' of Dr. Tijerina in
12.
There is a 1:lck of st,niCicant appoint-ent of blach and
at-larae .,at_, and are th.la flln:her preclwl:ed by their econotd.c
Hexican"""_ricans to key COIl'Dittees, cOllZliu1onl ..d board.
.tatu. fn. havill& any .eani",(ul pan:ici.pation in City dections
in the Lubbock City
,ove~t,
(!fote tnd-:r of Ma. Mercado, lin. Vllson, lin. Cl"ehncl,
there bei", mJ.y a fev token,
Ind Joe Vlldn and Plaintiffs' Exhibit. !fol. 22 and 2J).
and late, appoi"tllalts, alny of whidl "'ere ..,de subsequent to
the filln& of thh bvsuit, of these .norit1e., and ordinarily
nte erldence in this caR could be th.l. isolated into .e"nlU llllllhered de-
only to POlts where their presence I' Jlinority __ ers is r -
-..:a at . . lenet-h, but the fo~oinc Uat is INfficiellt to establi.h that
quired by
dleft are a ft\IlIber of hi&h1:r si&'lificanc factor. prelent in this ca.e thac
SOllIe
provilion of federal hv or replatiOfl', aa in
the case of e-nit,. DeYdoPlent FWld. (~ou Phintiffa' F.xhJ.bit
~o.
5, Stipalation Exhibits AA throup
fefl~
10.
Blackl and Hexican.....\lllerican. are not Ible to afford the hieb
co.t. of NIlnin&: an elt'etion ca.p.icn in the preHnt ci.ty-vide
refert'1\ce to the ....lexican" school in 4lbbock).
9.
ae....
Wilson and Rey. CleTdand).
in order to correct, continuin« at the preHnt ti-.e (See
~o
*,
altd teati-.y of De-
elected officials of the City of L6l.bbodc nside in ,.rta of
ttle Cit,. in vhid\ the bladr: ,"d Hexic.al'l-lowrican -.inorit1ea are
concentrated, but aU re.ide in the predominantl,. tlhite arelll
Plaintiffa' Exhibit ~o. 5, Sripalation Exhibit V).
-n-
'0 cOllsidered,
and that .... obrloualy relacH Tery clo.ely co the Idnds
I1m&cl
fUll:r referred: to C1Ur frill
vitne.. Cit,. CoundI.an Bill HcAliater).
of the Cit,., -.inl,. in the Southwest pon:iOfl of the City
can be
of factors U.tH in
(~ote
Couft', ""_nltiGn .... d
Is&uUt
The Court: is 'lain respect-
and 'iJIllar casea.
"_rand_
in 1ltdcb
'lie
dilQllled the DistrJ. ct
nalustl. . of flctors 11. these in the
!!!.!.ht!a and
caRl (at pqu 4-11, Trill "-oran").
We apilt point aat for che III1dance of the Court, a.
"-ran" bal. t),
chat _
VIe
did in our Trial
I,pects of each sad eYel'7 one of the CVftlty~
Ill.,. (21) leparate facton ettlOlUed by the Diltrict ColIn: in the
!'hL!.t....!...
c.
R(',('~t('r c;l.se, W m::!!!, Gravfl v 8;1.mu, J4J F.Supp. 704 (W.D. To:. 1972),
"'e~ .lM'aOy p~st'nt in thb e.ase ;iltd. estabUshed
bJ
the evidence taken durin,
THE I!ff!JUi'S
Slf
IlISCRltaNATORY INmn'
Proof of the a"recate of the forecoinl f.«on ptrwit. an inferenu of
the first three days of trhl thl"<lU£:h the founetll vitnt'Sses who bad testified
the Iihcriainatory lntttlt
bJ
(1976), .nd it is not neulS'l')' to show that Lubbocll'. IJSU. of at-1&rce
that ti_. the exhibits receivC'd in eyidenee, the stipl1.attons of the
~qui~
by Wuhinrtm y
Dnis
426 U.S. 229
p.lrths, and the jvdic:lal notice taken by the Coun: of the Teps statutes ""d
elf'edon. _s oripnally adopt" with diseri_natol')' intent.
Constl.utional pro\1.sions ereatinj; and lIlaintdninl nch1 .elrelation aftC! dis-
the at-lsrce plsn was adopted, Lubbock's vtdte IIII.jority enjoyed suth absolute
cril:lination throur;hout the State of Texa,.
Ve nsptetfully refer the Cow't to
control of aU polltie.al procease.,
our Hst of those tventy-iline (29) uparate factors a • • et forth 1" aur Trial
.,,15 the
bucks altd. Kt'X1~rican., tlllt there
is '(llIIe ",petition vith the other factor. dlicuSl" ahoye i .. thia briet.
crillinatol')' pIa" of ele«tn, Cit,. officials.
ot ,,11 of the factor' now estabUIh" ill
ne" for SlIy consciously dis-
But. however
fo~lated,
the
and it 11 ..,conltitvtional because it is now belnl . .intain" for the purpose
and Ht'X1U!l-Nleriean. hal bet?! and is now. dilutf'd, tit LuIlboek. fpa.,
by the presttlt at-1&t'le ehctton ache. of e1eedftl ..-bel"
V I ' ItO
at-lsrce plan adopted i" Lubbocll now perpetuate. p. .t radal dhcritdnation,
the p~s"'t case requiru • fiJIdinl by this Court that the votiftl .t~lth ~
black,
statewide nelal dlaerillinAtion
. s N s_epin, .,..15 pt,.,.a.he thr'OucJ'lout the State of TUllS, both a. to
tla:lonnj_, pac.e, 4-8, rather than reproclvclnl ttt. ap.t" heN, d"ee there
It is plain that the ;llUrtl"U
Indeed, W'hen
of dJlwtinl the YOtel of blacks ... 15 Keldcart-l..erian..
of the Lubbock Ci~
Mstbtls
llabpe
sn ".211
209, %17 (5th Cir. 1978).
Council.
Bs>ldrn y
2J8, U6 (.5tb Cir. 1978); J(nrt.t I
City 9(
Sidn, S71 F.ld
Indeeli, the reb"th.anell vith W'hlch the Cit,. of
Lu.bboc:k is fi,liti", ttl, pre.ent law.uh. In the vel')' f.ce of the 10l'll-repcateli plus:
bJ
bladr• •n4 Kai~rican. to
t.n
a .,...tllll of ele«!",
_lcipal offid.ah tlh.l.ch is filiI' sad. jlllt, _,. CCIII.titut:e still (urther
sipdtiCl!lt mdence of di.crildftatOlT intent.
Labbock City Council _bera
."e "ot atte-pted to f.dUt.t • • dlSlIle In the .,...tllll whlch would redress
the iftju.ticu Ic:~teli t~h ,.an of dtacrl.-ination snd exclusion fr_
t_
poUtica.l life of the
t_ p"Utlrt
_.tnt
~ty.
blt i",uad are fi,htlnC hard to prne"e
aItd. conrt.it\ltic.\all,. dl.eri.sd.nstory at-larll SJsu••
That
i. suftidClrt, inaeflr I ' intent i. ooneel1led.. bccauac keepin, the presmt
(
(l
qat:_ perpet_tel part. radal di.eri.sd..tion in the eleet:i..", processes of the
Cit,. of lubbock.
d.
lACK OF RF.5I'1l:'lSn'E\'ESS TO HINORITY ~'EEIlS
and fosters business interests of the white cocmaanity.
The District Coun:
in Ausberry sp.cifically r.j.cted spending of federal mon.y as a fonn of r.Virtually every witness presented by the Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Inter-
sponsiveness, just as this Court must now reject it.
",usber" v. City of
Yenor testified to one or more aspects of the lack of responsiveness to the needs
Monroe, Loui.iana. 456 F .Supp. 460. 464-466 (Ii,D. La. 1978).
of minoriti.s continually exhibited by the Defendant City of Lubbock.
It is
Regarding recent actions, such
a~
the adoption of a public
ac~ommod..t1oQ.s
important to recogni:e that there are several facets to responsiveness in
ordinance, or the childish cutting-down of a row of boundary trees (See fiaingovernment.
As Dr. Charles Johnson testified, responsiveness is more than
tiff.' Exhibit No.7) at the City of Lubbock C....t.ry s.parating the whit.
There is symbolic responsivenes., service
just allocation responsiveness.
aection. from the minority sectiona, it is plain that these actions are too
responsiveness, alloca.tion responsiveness, pollcy responsiveness, and relittle and too late.
sponsiveness in tcnns of time or delay.
A. this Court said during the D.c.mb.r 12. 1978. t.sti-
mony of Luciano Perez, Director of the Human Relations Conmission in Lubbock,
Th. City of Lubbock has tried to ••cabli.h that it is re.pon.iv. to the
the City l:0t caught with its hand. in the cooki. jar. and now would like to
needs of blacks and Hexican-Arnericans by showinf:: tvo things, basically:
put the cookies back.
(1)
Hassiv• •p.nding of fed.ral money in ar.a. of the Cit)' wh.r. black< and
Hexican~\merica"s
are concentrated;
and, (2)
( )
It ia too late for that.
Hinor actions, however re-
.pon.ive they might app.ar to be on an isolated. sup.rfidal basis. must b.
recent act!m. taken on the
vi....d and .valuated in light of this l ....uit in this Court and the ov.nth.lming
eve of this lawsuit constituting responses to a fev aped!!': llinority needs.
probability that the City nev.r ""uld have tak.n .v.n these fe.. action. had
Th. compl.t. an.....r to the fir.t .howlRf: by the City is that it is not
it not been for this la1llluit.
responsiveness to spend federal money where federal law requirel federal
The real attitude of the City of Lubbock toward the n.eds of blacks and
money to be spent.
The pertinent: question, and the very firlt queltion, to
)lexican.t.a.rican. in this cOIIIIIunity is demon.trated. for exampl•• by the City's
a.k about such .pending is this:
standard and
'0
How did th••• minority areas be.... 80 lUI>-
inadequate pablic health aerrice. pro&ram.
As Dr. Marjorie Orr testified, she
blighted that they qualify for f.d.ral aid to restore and ill.... hired .tter the tiliRf: of this la.....it. and the budg.t of the City's
PJ"O"'e them? The answer is clear:
years and
~ar.
of neglect, and aWlt
health departlMftt was then. increased SOlIe
60%,
but even with that increase,
total unrespon.iv.n••• on the part of the City of Lubbock. _d. pollibl. the
the .tandiRf: of this City in the rate of infant mortality in this Stat. and
d.cay of th••• neighborllood..
And it is no act of r ••ponsh. bennolence on
Mtion i • • elilln.ee, and etl.reetl)' affect. blacks and Mexican-.\meri cans more
the part of the City of Lubbock to spend federal taxpaycp' I!mu in IIl.ROrity
than any oth.r ••pent of Lubbock'. pop.llation.
.rea •• particularly when .uch spendinl: fre.s city -.t.s for other p.lrposes
()
(
-25-
-26-
Even with the budg.t
and
pcrsonn~l
dards.
a dangerous intersection, the naJRing of a park, the elimination of improper
increases, the City health department does not meet State stan-
The p.>blic health clinic is located in an area that is highl:r incon-
venient, and difficult for patients to reach.
It is not adequately served
pollee attitudes and practices, the correctian of unsatisfactory vorldng conditions, and related matters.
by the City bus service, evm though that service is kept afioat by federal
money.
And a large part of its hJ.dget goes for "vector" mosquito cantrol, •
In SUIll1lar;r. the Cit:r of Lubbock hal shewn only that cit:r ••rvice. are
distributed throughout the cit:r. but th.re was no significant .vidence that
budgetary practice unused in most other Texas cities as testified to by Dr.
the City was appropriately r.sponding .pecifically to ne.d. of the minorit:r
Orr.
c_niti•• involved in thus distributing City ••rvice..
The real attitude of the Cit:r of Lubbock is shown. for example. in lta
For exampl•• in the
area of Housin& Code enforcement, various minority members have repeatedly in-
mciall)' segregated and discriminator;r operation of ita municipal C<OIeter;r
dicated a pressing need for vigorous
for thirty years, since acquiring control of it in 1948, and the ron-dCMt,
(~ot. t.stimon:r of Ton:r Rey••• C.org. Scott and Sister Regina). In it. ~.al
enforcement, but none is forthcondng
disgraceful condition of the black and Hexican.....t..tDerican area. of that cemetery.
to .how that it distrih.lte. all ••rvice• •quall:r. the Cit:r pre.ent.d the t ••ti-
1\ watering system is nov being installed in the minority section of the
mon:r of various vitn.s••• to the effect that there is no ov.rt withholding of
tery, only JO years after the city acquired it.
Celie-
By contrast, the vtdte por-
.enicel on the hasis of race or &eographic area: yet, the blighted condition
.0
tions of the same cemetery have been maintained in 100d condition durinc the
of
s;t.me 30 years.
it is the v.r;r fact of blight and decs:r in the minorit:r areas that ju.tifi••
Even in the burial of ita dead, this City deeonltratel clearly
the use of federal funds to upgrade Rnd restore such areas.
its real attitudes and motives.
Dr. Charles John.on testified that the little re.pon.iv.n••• black. and
Hexican~ericans receive
man:r lainority neighborhood• •peaks for itaelf. and as indicated abov••
from the govel'1Ulleftt of the City of Lubbock comes,
Significantl:r. the Cit:r did not a.k ita Fire Chief or it. A••istant Police
Chi.f. when the;r testified. nor did it ask it. Cit:r Hanager. wheth.r!htt w.r.
ordinaril:r. free confrontation. (k~tlan Park) ....... prote.U (sanitation strik••).
aware of incident. or practice. of racial di.crimination. although the other
demon.tration. (th. Harch of Faith). and similar action..
Cit:r vitn
Th••• two sdnorit;r
re asked that qu.stion at the concluaion of their direct te.ti-
group. cannot .iIapl:r contact their repre.entativ•• in Ch:r Hall as wldt.
-:r.
citisens can, and request consideration of vtatever is needed.
Plaintitf-Intenenor'. vitn•••e. ret;arding incident. of racial di .crimination
Instead, they
find it necessary to lDOunt long-tena, continuinc, maasive proteat:I,
d~ltra­
tion., and similar tactics even for sOIlItthin& so IIlUJ'ldane as a traffic llpt at
b:r
and an
red it in the negati.....
the Lubbock police. the eYidence of di.crimination in hiring practices by
the Lubbock Pollce and Fire Departaetlt. Itandsunrebutted:Jhe statistics
shoving race and
-7:1-
The t.sti!aon:r of Plaintiffs' and
Hon of ...icipal emplo;re•••peak for themselv.s and de-
(
PtAIA/1)/FS'
C:,i).J~ :
JflP~C
"L
A)
I1LP~£./
trIAC
5,fIP
/A,)
"
1'1/2
0.
IIn-rtc
tfF~'J""lf1)dN
f))5C/f/-""1 I ,.A1-fruN./
ApI)
('"()().If'T>
I.IP,.£,v,
II
s:) Jt:?~ J:2J 51!" .;T5i( (S'?" ~,It. 196~
,iliff
~F
(J,J£F
z}fI~~" PI?'VJ~
/)15'11,1'1""/ c~<A.!> N!ff" p;;yJf'T
7JI,,""
r;
;~~,vv,,~,.t1
TH~ f~tJ8t..~,., CJF!f,l eM'C'F' r~N TE''-L ~GlCJ/
~6IJM" -'.
" ••• sucH
/111
B~(JWA,)
5f11TIS1'ICS
j(J~ ",AJ1j
S
~""'rJ
5"'tM171A1
CiflrF
))~.
Ex.
P.EIIC
HAl>
'P'
T~ 0$ C"'U5r~
t E 50L
!JP/) 7JJ1f'J''' rRINc,f>k c~e.u£
CPM ~cI I </$ If" CI U
PI' c R''''''MMrMAJ " ••
If
nur-
CIIAAlcE
,FdA" 71'JU
W~.f
"(514 E}J 4-'>'9-
II
IlOnstnte dhcrUdn;lt101'i 1
Lubbock Fire Depar't-ent. and 1n
the Lubbock lolie
nrtw
her Cit
any. ainority _ 1 ' 1 CICCI" &1I)'th1~ but the lIOn
De
defllr't....tl vhere
-mal
tty.
if
We Ire a_re of the CoW't's Yiev that the testt-ly of u;~r't witne..es
litton. (naintith'
in I use a!eh IS this is not IS helpful to the Court IS I faet-Cinder IS the
t.UU.b1t S'o. S. Stipulation~_ )tl:).
At IIOst. the City has shown
IkWe
u·stl-.y of other vitneaaes and other evidence.
rf'sponall'erIf'SI ot allocat10n of unieel.
brief ift dJlcussif\& the expert teati-.y.
but that. sU.ncl1nfl alone. is ItOt the ruponsll'erIess to the needs of .noritle,
contf'Clplated by the deddf'd uses.
that there 11 as . .d1 alcn1CiC&nct In whit _I !!2I "id by the City's only
"nd the " ' - Rebt1on. e-lsslon. appa_
~ !!.U upert vltness IS 1n what he 'aid.·
rently ~flarded by the City IS OI'ie of It I _11: responlh'e gesture•• 11 reprded
Dr TUbsl did nM: rtcO!Dml tp the Cpurt that Lubbslck should sS'Jfttinur vi th
by an r.tinority IX'Qbers who test1fied lbout 1t I ' I lOP• • "bone" 1ft T. J.
Patterson's language, an 1neffeeth'e front with 110 power _lid no 1l1nuerlee.
Ita at_laae nltM
It
need.
He did not tfltifl thIS the IIt_brn nltc!! \9t.Ild bt but
is I"tg.u'llcd by hs present Direetor. Luciano Perel. . . Inefrectil'e. It il re-
Cpr ';h'
I:;lrdt'd liS ineffective by Wa)"lle Dickey. wIIo served as OIIe or itl wtdte Ippo1nted
Dr. Tubel vould not IlIke any
IIaIIbf'r"
I.cC(lJ'dinCly. we \till be
'Ie respectfully SIllIest to the CO\ll"t
pf Lubbpck.
.lIould do in th1l CI.e.
'nd Ce0ll:e SC(ltt. I black who "fused In Ippo1nt.erlt to tIlt ~ ..Ion.
It i.llneffecthe llIld powerltu. and does not conl1:1tute mdetlu or "spon-
tedniq\tt
sheness to the n..eds of .u.orit1es.
-w.,
11
or
In fact. to the Court',
ObviOllI ,urprhe. and ours,
re~dation It In reprd.in& what the Cow"!:
Instud. Dr. Tltbel (1)
disagreed with the statiatical
our expu~ witness. Dr. Johnson. and (2)
cli"Creed that OI'ie oould
tOletherM (Dr. Tlehel's terwboloer. not oura) blac:kI and Hu::f.c.a........-.eri_
Dr. Charles John_. on the other "'..cI. testified that the at-l&t1Ie .,..UII
"t keeps blac:kl _d Hexlean-J,llUlcans froo- bet"l elect" to the Lubboek
We hprd Dr. hebe]. I I tile Cit,'. tlQlert vi~eas. althouch Dr. KdCanu ..
alao tel'tln... Dr. HcHanu ua.lJted 01117 the City" ~bit. ~,ardiJl& its
..nte.......
Oftly t _ telt.t-y of the City'. witn,,,,. before she teatltiN. De obri_17
__1.... of the Cit,'s responshenell to .nority
..... 111 1odMdr
prlac:lpal c.c:lallloft (tt.,t 11n&1~r cliatricu
...... __tdq to . . wltll
fII IIlftority -..ben) is CU\trary to the dec:bl. . II the ........ CoIal"t of tho tlIdted State. on preehely that _thr.
_1'11
wet1_
(
()
IIII
CIty Council; tl\"t blacks .,d .:exic:all_'_rlcan. have in the past voted for
those dtIes, COtlsldered "
tach otMr. and c:.,n be expected to do so apIII in the future (and. the testi-
Statea hal con.ht"tI)' held that II slnitl_bc:r 41.trict .,..t. . is the onl:r
lIlony of HI's. Haria Ruls, of Slaton. 7e:us, C'StablIshed that the ..JIlt 11 true
of blacks and
~:exl.c:an_\llIeric:llnS I"
Sbt,,"'s sllll!:lt-4ltlDber d.htriet s,sttll of
deetinl!: Cit,. oflidds which has existd sbce 19Z9h
tllat black, .,..d.
re_ed)' I Dbtrict Court
CAn
a croup.
But the Supre-e COlIn: of the Urlited:
order In Cille. of this nature, elll;pen: witnesses to
the contrary notwithstandinl.
"'hatever the "equit:r of representatlOO'l" ficure
in • atatbtiesl study of lel'enllundred I.Mericall dtie• •)' _all. this
COlIn: IIIIlSt follow the: path outlined by the Sup.-- Coun: and C'IIIplOJ • sincle-
s;me kinds of radal segrel!:lItion Md dis<::rilll111l1tion It the hand, of the white
_edler diltrict sy.t .. a. the rClStdy in thh ca.e, if an, relid .t an is to
lII;ljOritJ I" Lubbock. Texas;
be
that deetioro retUl'1l' 1" Lubbock eltctiorIS . ' -
l~nte4.
'nils is a. it PClUld be, for t.hi. Court is COtlcemed ill t.hia
that a !linont,. -.bel' un be elected. to the Lubbodc Cit, Council if a ai",l_
case with Lubbock, Texa•• not with sel'enl hundM AMerican dtie, In a sutls-
ll\eI:ber dhtri<::t systtll 11 adopted;
tical .tudy.
lind that a .lnl!:l_ber d.htrict .,..ttll
vill lead to • better l:Urlidpl11 l!:ovel'1lltft'lt and a better coa-uuty in Lubboc:k,
Dr. Johnson studied the evidence .1Id lIee4s of
1hl.J...£!1L
based. hi. conclusion. priMaril)' upon the Lubbock situation.
Md
Neither Dr. Taebd
nor Dr. Ndilnu, condlacted a .tud)' of Lubbock.
Si&nIIi<::sntl,. Dr. Taebel frankly c:onccded that in cene",l he favon a
.inl!:le-tlllber 41,trict sylttlll for th.t very rellion.
The statistical _ethodol011' dhp.lte ce-e. to thbs
on the tedmiquu used to
dete~ne
the expen. eli_cree
polarisatica of voti", .nd the votu tunt-
out of lli.norititl to aupport Idnorit)' calldidate••
They do not, inded they
armot di ..."",, on the election retUI'1l' in Lubbock electIon,.
Thou raw
lipre., standing alone, ...-pl)' d_strate the correctness of Dr. JoIm.ca'.
conclusion..
It b
Dr. JohnMn correctl:r interpreted: the dection of State: Representati'ft' Froy
Salin" fro- rM1ltric:ted. District. 75-8, and the CIt)' Council nce of Haris
of little or IKl sipificanu in this bvsult vhst the
Kereado, to _
that mnorlth. can and Ylll elect S1inorit)' _ben to the
Lubbock Cit)' Coundl, i f
w)'
they an: &1'fm a COrIltitutIOO'lal opportunity to
do .0 with a slnale-tMllbc:r di.trict .,.,t_ ordered by t.hi. Court.
te:sti~
Dr. Johnson's
_. buttressed. by Madison Sotder, »-eratic Party COUI'It:r Chainlllln,
ii, rellrd to the SaU• • race.
Ms. Mercado ~d "
Dr. Jomaon d_urated in his report t"t
. . .bel' of the Lubbock CIt)' Colftdl
RO\II
if she had NIl
"equit)' of reprnmtation" lil'ln: . , be vith or without: .Ina:1e-tllber district
under a properl:r devised. dn&1.--ber district .,.1t1B (natntiffs' Exhibit
.,.It~
l'o. 6, N " ~7) •
in several hundred Aaerian cititl.
of up""i"" the delree 14 \111m
11l.at h
.l"ll~r
aiMpl)' a statistiesl -:r
district
.,.It__ to b.
relate4 to the opportutdt:r of _norith, to 'ene on dt:r cOUl'ldls In aU of
Ve Itre., that thh h not a _tt.e.r of t.heory or .peculatIon about
-equit)' of repno.entation- flcurea, but i • •illpl.:r a _attu of uJdnl: note of
the elect!.. rtCVft. in lAabbock.
(
-n-
Blacks vote fer black., or if Itvm a choicr
..
-,
f.
THE RD"ItrlflED RDlEIlf 9' A SY'IGlE4lDlllm MSmICT STS1p1
c:l.n. vote Cor .lexlcan..,\_riean•• or if Civfll a choice hetvt'fIl a white and a
The voter. of the City of Lubbock vere pre'fIlted vith the opPOrtunity
black. thftl Cor a black.
_'hite. vote for whitea,
nae very ai_pIt' COflc:lulion
to clIance tlle present at-la"e syrt_, altd tlle white _jority of the Ciq-
cC the EIiltter is this:
a sincle -.her distrlrt syat_ viU enable then two
overwhd.inCly rejected the propo." dwICe (nalntiffs' t.xh1bit
1(0,
5,
trinori ty sroups to ehc:t c:andidate. to the Lubbock City Council, but WIder
Stipulation Exhibit 55) In January of 1975,
The vote waa 1,862 In favor of
the pruent a,t-larce I)·stem the whitt' Njority .lway. prevent. the election
the clIance, and ",835 I&ainrt tbe chan&e (Pla1ntiff.' Exhibit !Co• .5, Slipof any Ilinority c:andidate.
u.tlon Exhibit 55),
It is t"'e that a blade per_ was once dected to the Luibbock
Acc:ordl"lly, the bLack. M' llex1<:J1l-,\aericans have no
I~ependfllt
.-edy through the proce••ea of propoalnl charter alllendrlltnU.
Sct>ool District School 8o.1rd, Ind a HulU1l"'\lIertc:an nov .enea a. In elected
The Cit,. hal con.latently taken the poaltion that the City Council hal
_bt'r of that Board..
But a. Dr, JohnilOn pointed out. the School &o.rd is
.baolutely no a"thority to c:haft«e the preaent election
not as important in the Minds of _ I t voterl II tht' Clq- Council, ..,.1 it ls
an dection that UJ\l:l.lly lul •• _11 voter tUl1IOllt.
ordinarily hinder. the effort. of a II1noritJ _her to be elected.
T1'Iu',
net itt the aqftlu of Iny mdence to jUltify retention of thl' It-hrr;e
It
sy.tetlo
_s possible for a l!!lf.noriq- _ber to vin election to the School Board. in this
City. evle1l thou&h
II.
t~
e~ected
Exhibit :fo. 5, Stipulation EMibit !Co. 9.5: Tex. Rev. Ch. Stat"
prior to
n..
tl_ ..tlen cc.binl"& Sebool &o.rd dectiOQ with Ciq- eketiOQ in....ed a
their
lart;er YOUr tUl1Iout for School Bc.rd dection..
lo.t In such a co-b1ned dectiClft, where there
ItaIIlm, the
Hai~riean _bu
nae bu.c:k Sdlool Board -.ber
va. a
of tbe Sclirool
The onl,. _y to a.eftC1 the City Chlrter, and o:hs.n&e the election schNl",
is by a _jority "'~e of the (tohlte) voters of the City of ~bbock (Plaintifh'
lllinority _.ber UI'rIot vin lin election to the City Council.
Turtherlllore, both lIlinoritJ _ben of the School Board were
.,.st_ and c.annot do
10 under Iny dr~tanee. (ft.aintiffa' Exhibit No, .5, Stipulation No., 91-96),
A lal'1e voter tUl1Iout
Art, 1170).
the bladl. and Halc:aJt-A_rlc::an. _'Ie no other plaee to tvm for
~
thut to thi.
e-rt. TIle Vllte _jority.
by its racially
polari~ed
votinC, prevent. the IIinorith. fro- eIeett.c -.inortt,. _her. to the' City
ls"e voter t\Imout.
"rd,
JOIM
~il.
TIle 1lh1te _jorlty, by its racially polari,," votl""
prevSltJ any
tutifle' tbe Sdlool
c:han&:e I" the at-1I"• .,..t_, Ull1 tMlI effectively insure. the eantinuation
Board eleetlon required only a plunllty for election. while the City Cound.l
of the \lftCOflJtltvtlona1 d.1luti&ll of the YOtinc .trenrth of bbeks and llmc.an.lectiona require a .. jority.
No .-inority hal bfln eleeted to tbe Sdlool
~Qfl'
~
1ft Lubbodt.
rl,M • • • It 11
The pnHllt syst_ la not fair, It is not ju.t, it is
ftot
CClftJtltutional.
One voaJ.d hope that eonsiderations
of Ord1MrT decency wwld dictate to the white dthen. of Lubbock and to their
(
()
-JJ-
-34-
dtoctC'd offielab. that 80* way ahould be found to allow bbck citizena MId
~:exiclln"'\lIlerica.n
dti:z:~a
to serve on the body tN.t &overna th. in this City,
but that hope haa clllllshtently failed, and it is now abwuS.atltly clear that
PlaintUta and 'laint.iff-Ilttenenor haYe tolt.ablished
In
of die ele.tntl
required to pre...a11 1ft t.his lit.ir;ation, and. t.h. llack chin"a and Mu:ic.an-
only thh Court has the power and authority to do for Lubbol;:k what is ri&ht
".erican cithe". of Lubbock. represent.ed a. ela .. IaelIIber. by the nallleCl
in this unfortunate situation.
'hint.Uta and .bintUf-r"ternnor. are entitled t.o the r-.edy t.hey seek.
"'"hat thto Court must do is char;
a sin&le-e-ber district IJste. dl
tolectil\& City CcuncU _sbers, in which the Cound.l _ber _ t
~aide
aeapeetflllly aut:aitted.
Sa
tnt- &t'or;raphic.al district that he 0:" ai'll' representl ..,d be yotC'd lIpon only
br
citl:oms residinr; in thllt saae district. _n be drrlsed aM ordered tMple_nted by the Court.
It ahould not be lnord.inatel,- difficult to drrlae 1lIc.h
a plan, and Dr. JohnSOtl'a
~port
proridu ae...eral poarible -odell to choos.
frClll in dravinr; the needed dist.rictl.
-JS-
REV. ROI JCNl3. et .1.
ft&1lltiff.
CIVIL AcrtOlf MO. CA-5-76-34
TlI& CITY tI U41BOC1, et al,
Cf]tnnCA tt OF SDYIcr;
" " " •• molt, ",,,
~ .,. -i:ti: do, of u ~
1979. U'rYif;~ of a tn.o~ and oor"et !;OPJ of tM for~&oillJ Port-Trh1
Dtfmcianu
mJJR.\NDtIH or
rid
of Phintlfh and PlaiMi(f-InterYenor waa . .de upon Ddendanu by hand-dtlivt'rinCtht' a_t'to tht'irattomt'J'. of "cord.a foll_1
Hr. John Ro", City Attonu,.
Hr. J. . . ' . I~ter, City Trial-Attomt!1
lAW Sl! AWUUl
PWlldfla .nd Pl.intiff-Interflnor
Hr. TraYi. D. ShtltCll'
Hr. Demh W. HcGil1
TraYi. D. SheltCll' "Allodat..
1507 Thirteenth lIit~d:
:::tS/L
ATl'OR"t'I'f\1t PLU:1fTIFrS
~~~
tender thh H_ran_ of
La" 011 Avard of "tumey. 'etl ill the .bon caprtoned IDol ftWlben.d cau••,
for the plcianct of the
:curt.
1.
Lubbock City Hd1
916 Tu. . .eYeflll.
Lubbock. TQt. 79401
or "'ttO!t'fETS F!D
bt~by
Coun,el for the naintiff. MIl Plaintiff-Int.n''''or, and tile chun rtpn..mted by
th~
Plaintiff. arid 'laintiff-Inttn'enor, in thl. caat .re mtltled
to .ttomeJ' feu under the J"tcerlt ~t to 42 U.S.C. I 1988, Public La"
-,.,..
M-559, 94th
Con&nu, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2641, -tddl pl'OYi4u in pertl-
tn
1m,
&ft;J'
.etl.oa or
p!"OCtectlD,&
to enforce .. prvrld_ of ItCtiolll
1978, 1919, 1980 arid 1981. of
of Public La" 9'-.318, or 1a
OIl behalf of the
0n1~
&ft;J'
th~
ReYi.ed Stabltea, titb II
ani .cd_ or pI'1)ceeclilll, by or
State. of '"-erIca. to enforee. or dlarci"C
• 'fio!atl_ fJ/I• • ph'fi11011 of the United Statu
Cod'.
fir
tnt~",al R~vmue
titb 'fI of the ChU Meht. Act of 1964, the court, i.
ie. clllCretl_, ..,. allow th. pre,..il1l1l party, other than the
A copy of t " tat of 'dI•• t,t.te 11 .ttac:hed hereto and incorpor.ted herelll
II Appendix ' . ,
!tie
(a) tht
~bm.h. lqblati-q
ItiIrtOIIT of thi, «,tue ••tabU,bed dlat:
,tawt. 1I'Pli•• to caM, like the pruent
tIla data of -.aee..tt
(b)
_e wtdch "ere pendlnC on
tlrw .tatvt. 11 t. be irlterpreted to pl"O'rid~ for
.n
attomey. lee. 1" • aueee••fuI 41 U.S.C•• 1983
'VU'U 01
are spedal drCUlUtaneu _ina .ud! an .~rd unJuat:
c:aM
\ilUe•• then
and, (e)
fte. lllay be awarded ~.u.s.s... Then a.pe~. of the new .t.tllte vl11 b.
d.hc:ussed. i" the order Just
(t,)
Tht
c1"ett.
The Moun Repo"- plainly .tated the ConIrnatonal intnlt tlat the new
tl'I.~IIeftU
1ft .ceordanee vlth .ppUeable deehion. of the Suprc:se
Court, the bill is intnlded. to app17 to all
UM'
pendtac
va.
the statute would apply retroae:thely to ~na eues, ift ~enU b)o
Report also refer. to !IDd1S!" Risres:nd Schm lot"'
The II. . .
416 U.S. 696
the date of it. ""actMtM, 1ft
order to COllptl'lSllte couul for HrrlCU reuSe,," prior to enact_to
prill.dple 11 well enablJahed.:
nd..
court• •Iat apply the law ill effect .t tile
The buh for thl• •tat-.nt 1& .pelled. GUt fullJ' lJI
There. the Senate e-1ttfl _de
[d.l'1l rtchtil lava, aad that fee ._rd., an:
an ifttecnJ. part; of the relIIed1e. nee:t...ry to obtaill • • • coapll.nee.- The
vitia
5.-
eonCre..' powera vader,
U.
!nUt l1lL tbe POIoU'tflfttla
under tid.. enabllftl prorlaiOll of the f'ourtetl'lth A.end.Bent.
tb. Itlltute w. enacted. panuut to SeetiOll S.
t", floor that
't.II7
ill fa"or of awl"diq tee, &&wat .t.te defeftdaata."
Dai17 ed., Oet. 1, 1976).
,,,,I'd
of attomsl' "II.
at.ndard. IIII.der the 1964 Chu lUcht. Act:.
11_ atatate h
Indeed, the
tbe _
ta brief, Os PrsnllioC
•• tile
-ru
-should onlinart1y re«:O'fsr an auomey'. f .. unle.. ,pedal drc:wutaftce.
vou1d render such an .vard. unjuat.2d Ses•• , p. 4, Jlllle 29, 1916;
Sen •• pp. S-6. Sept. 15. 1916).
b)o!frAn J
"nit;
(Smat. lI.eport "0. M-lau, tela Ccsq••
Hoult I!.eport !fo. 94-1558, 94t1l Ccsq., 1Il
This h tbe .tandard. that
'ads !:ntsrprhu Inc
!fgnhcrpn" SM" pf Edugttm
w.
eatabUlbed.
J90 U.S. 400, 401 (1961). aM
411 U.S. 4%7, 428 (1'13).
In the i.utant eaR. there .re no ".pecia1 clraaat.anc:e.- t"t . .1.
render an
._r4
of attomeya fee.
"urlJaat.- To tllt c:.rt.hIT. all t_ n 1 _ t
Cone""
c:a'lt~te,
ba llColleeted either direet17
rr-
.tated. _
qQt.tlcln arid", under the EleYenth ....rd~t is reaobed.
J9J O.S. 2:68 (1969), .nd .uthoritia cited. thereb.
In
'ointina out that
CotIar'll!.-zt Drl.naa
SndlSjI T R!st-smd SEhm !clEd JllID.l Dw:a..Ia.
Thl! .tlt!!!.! "!lUI rn
Section
t..enAatt h no bar to fee aw.rdl . .de purauot to Con.crc.JiOfta1authoriSl\t1on
"wainc Authority
(b)
A~t.
1Il. tlhletdq! Bluer _U,S'--J 96 S. C1:. 2666 (1916), ettc:d
tlat of deddort.
The sundard. sspoused b)o Con&re.. 1ft the
a bar to tile a.rdtllC
with app,..,.,.1 b)o the Houl. e-lttee. the Supre.e Court held that the Elnentb
(1914), ill. 1oIhic:h the Court applied the school deM,re"tiOll ecu"ael !e.
Oft
(H.II.. Report; "0. 94-1558•
Senate ee.-Lttee therefore stated. tlat fee a.rd. are pronded "in acc:ordanee
c...
Ree:. 12155, Daily ed.. Oct. 1, 1976) _d
.t.tute retroact:hdy to • Uo" pencU.q
ftlK
Hcudn& coapU.nce witb these
tvlce e.PI1.ed. th.t
c«,,-an Drina" (122 COftC. Ree:. 12160, Daily ed. Oct:. 1. 1976).
ta.
a tintin& that "the effeet. of Slch fee .wrd.•• re ancillary and inc:ldtnt to
Co",. 2d Sns., p. 4, n. 6 (Sept. 15, 1976).
On the floor of the Hoult of Reprutl'luthe•• it
le.h.
fbi: Hou.. eo-itue
of coun.el feea a,&iraat the [Statu CCFI'en-t.-
Sm.te I!.eport !fo. 94-1011, A1!R.!1J at p. 5.
the eJate of enae:tllalt ••••••• H••••eport !fo. 94-1558, 94th
ConI.
'!ben la no DeTentll "-enamt probl..
upUcit1.J' ,Uted that "1'ht Elnmth a-adlsent h
.IlI.PIL p. 7, ft. 14).
Oft
award of fee ••
_,. be awarded directly aptllat at.te .ad local offici.ls ud &&Ncie. ad
le&i.lathe hiltory of the fttv .t.tute i. CiClnclud"e.
• tatute vould COTem .11 case. that wotre pendin, on the date of
1.11
Since the new .tatute eoYer. 42 U.S.C. I 1983 eau., the attcrn!!1ll fee.
their aubd.iYlai9l'l'.
Jutute appUS! tg thi. stU
Concre._" ",,,der.on (122
f.ct. and. d.ro-tanc:ea ill erldmca 1ft tid. UoM point to
attorney.
(122
Cone.
I!.eE. 1n6O.
that aw.rd.. undsr the new .utute lilly
tn. tb. official, lB Id. oftic1al c.apac:lty,
f\IncIa of hi. ac-CJ' or under hia control, or fl"Oll the state or loeal
,crre""'~ (wtlather or ftot the &&!!nCJ' or &Ol't~t iI a na-ed party)"
(Senate I!.eport Wo. 94-1011, .IIIiIL .t p. S).
Ie other wrd•• the Court could
direct dat aUomey. tee. ia the pre,tnt e. .e ba pdd either by The City of
Lubbodr. or
c.llpldt1e••
to
b7
tbe re.pee:t.he City of Lubteck Defendant. in their oftic:lal
'It. Rou. . lI.eport point. out that '"tbt Creata relcurc:e. avatleble
&crr~t.
prcm.dt .n ...1. b... froa Wid! fee. can be .w.rded to the
pnnJ.liq pla1atitt ia .-tta ap.i.Bat &CFI'en-tal official. or tI'ltitiu.-
("-ae Report JIo. "'U5lI, ~ at p. f).
the Senate Report specifically atates tha~ "1:" appropriate clrQUUtancel,
counsel fees under Lthe new statuti! ma,. be awarded
Report No. 94-1011. ~ at p. 5).
The Report emphasises that "Such avarda
are ('specially appropriate where a party haa prevailed
an important latter
CIt
in the course of litigation, evm men he untiaately does not prevail on all
issues."
<!l!.).
(a)
~ lJ.1I.... (Senate
In the present case. in the event the Plaintiffs and Plain-
tiff-Intervenor prevail on the rutter of the equitable relief aought,
a.
Warren Go•• and the exhibits .ettine forth the hour. expended. Iohidt be examined. and which were admitted into evidence in this ca...
The odd...ce
established that all such hours in this case were necessary to proper preparation and trial of the cas••
in this case, they will have prevailed on the kind of important atter cont..-
The novelty and difficulty of the que.tion••
(b)
This case has presented a number of unusual isSls. and vas, of course,
an extensive class acti....uit under Rule 23. 'ederal Rules of Civil Procedure.
by the nev statute.
The House Report is explicit in statinc that "The word 'prnailinc' h
not intended to require the entry of a
In this case. the bours .re e.tablished by tbe te.ti-.y of Mr. I.
coun.el.
they insist they are entitled to do on the bash of the eddence of record
plat~
Th. time and labor required.
Thi. refers to the number of hour. and the amount of effort expended by
fi.I:l!l.
order before fee• ..,. be recovered."
(House Report No. 94-1558• .§!!I!m. p. 8, emphaais in the oripnal).
The Report
It involved DRlltiple parties.
It has presented fact situations difficult
to investir;ate and complex in nature. involvine the conduct of )lunicipal
Electi..... and the lack of re.ponsi"",,es. of • Municipal Government in it.
operation. tavard thousands of clas• •embers.
quotes vith approval the Suprane Court's holdinl in Bodin y. ti clwpA
It constaed some
Sehool Board. 416 U.S. 696. 723 (1974). that'" diatrict eourt . .at han e1is-
day. in trial alone. as vo11 •• varioua p.....trial bearine. and conferenees with
cretion to avard fees and costa incident to the final diapoaiti ... of intort.
the Court.
matters."
The Report adds that ''Sueh avarda ~.uss are particularly
important in protracted litigation. were it is difficult to predict with any
certainty the date upon Iohieh a final order will be entered."
<!l!.)
The
Report suggests as a standard the guideline of Bradlex that any order "that
(c)
The 'kill' rsgui'ite tp pedona the lenal KNice properly.
Thi. factor is 10reely a _tter for the Court to detel'lllin•• based upon
"expertise cained f . - plst experience a. a 1o..,.e.... snd "ob.ervatio" from the
b...ch of la..,.ers at work." 488'.2d at 718.
The Court sbould consider the
detemnes substantial right. of the plrtica" may support an avard of fee••
attorney.' veri< product. their preparati.... and their r;eneral ability before
<!l!.).
the Court. Ij.
In the present case, an equitable relief order would certainly aapport:
cretion, but standards for awardinc reasonable counsel fees are .et forth in
(5th Cir. 1974).
bea'"
Inc., 488
r.2d
114
~ vas a Title VII emple>Y'"""t e1i.crillination .uit, but
the sta"dard. are of r;eneral .pplieati... and han be.., frequently .pplied to
42 U.S.C. I 1983 case•• e.r;•• Stanford Daily y,
Cal. 1974);
The I!!"!clusion of other pplO"f!l!"!t by the anomer due to acceptanes
g".
The aaaunt of time lpent by ftaintiffs' counsel Perez, Carza, and Hall,
2.
The amount of the fees is, of course, • mtter within the Court'. clia-
the IeadinK case of Johnsm v. Gsouia Hictnl!T
(d)
qf the
the award of feel at this stale of the case.
ZUrsber.
64' .1l.1l. 6BO (1I.1l.
and Pl.intiff-Intervenor'. coun.ellorthur. on this ease has neeessarily precluded their doi... other lecal buaine...
The.... has been no reduction in the
amount of in.... earned by Plaintiff.' coun.el Ben.on. or Plaintiff-Intel'Yenor'. coun.el IIaddov. aince they han been ...ployed by the Sehool of Law.
Texa. Tecb UniTeraity• .urine the suit and han dat.ted their time as available f .... the requi.........t. of their tcachine duties .t the Sehool of Law.
Hiller y, Carlson. 401 , .Supp. 835. 831-859 (M.Il. Fla. 1975).
-5-
",ther
t~ f~
a private law praetiee.
But the Court 11 entitled. to take
into condderation th.at lawyera e-ployed. by orpnhati_a other than. prhllte
law flrss are not precluded fl'. ",covertnl fee••
~dism Cpunt! BNrd qC ~catim
See. e.c., ~
496 '.3d 682, &89 (5tb Cir. 1974);
P"urrsm, <l9J F.3d 598, 606-601 (Stll Cir. 1974);
Fatrlu v
"muitl!'! Corp
Lu
I
In hdssr!
Sguth,m
444 F.U 14J, 141, n. J (Stll Cir. 19nh Clark I
A..dean
~ 4J7 F.2d 959 (5tb Cir. 1911), afflNi.,. 320 F.Supp. 709 (I.D.
La. 1970);
t!iller I
(Sth Cir°. 1970).
All:LIsramt tourpriPS!
(7th Cir. 1975);
426 '.3d 534, 5~5:J9
Hanhm
prramt SI". illc1.llded
br
the la"Jer hi...elt.
411 po .S"pp. 1059, 1066 ( ••••C. 1976), • Title mUle,
JIld,e Richey awarded $60.00 per hour to I lawyer adnd.tted to the Bar 1ft 1968,
and $30.00 and $35.00 per hour to her smpldrlT tnPllS'rimq1l '''9des " .
In Stan(9rd Dan!
%lIrchrr
T
64 '.IIl.D. 680, 684-685 (If••• Cal. 1974), sa
aetion Involrlnl pollce .t.condllct, the Court .warded. only $50.00 per hour,
Tm'!lend. 525
eliacounti", the lawyer.' hi&f\er ulNll ~llinc ratu beeaule the litilation
OIIt of the .na of the expertlae of .lIm lawyera.
Bnndmburur I
'Dtsepe.
494'.3d 885. 889 (9tb Cir. 1974);
award. have ranced frca •
Arm!!)n
y
Bg!rd
Trade
c(
feell and expelln . , not be redueed because appellanut attorat7
exClllpt fourtdation. or beCliun the attoftler
doe. llot
~ 312
ae:nior).
(2)
~e::t • f«• • • •
Of COUnt. tbe Court . , " . iu _
knowledce of
c:uat.~
f.1
fa the II"ea for federal Utiption.
The ~ caae, .I!IRlL atltt. that ".t no tt.e n _ , the fee for le,a!
Whether the attome1 chartes • fn or baa an Ilre-.t that the
ortanhation that CIIIplClJ' hi_ will receive atI1 .~ed attoftl~t
work faU "low the $20.00 per hcur pre.crlbed by the CrUdnal JII.tice Act
fen Ire not ba,•• on whidl to den1 or lildt .ttoftltJ't. feea or u;pen.e••
I'lowever, fee. It such • nt, i. the prelftlt caae - t d be
(481 '.2d It 718).
Cnta.ly lMdequate.
AceordinclJ, thb Court can and ahOild take into oonddcratlon the work and
Under that Aet. the
Cciart~ppoi.ntt4 lawyer h
pa7*'nt of fee. pa!Wll&flt to tbe Act'l .cheliIIle.
effort. of III IUoftleya representin, the Plaintiffa and PlaintUf-Inte"enor
obviOUI
and the hundreds of . s e n of the cl...es whidl ther repruent 1.11 the pre-
1.a paraarapll (f),
.entlitlptlon.
tbl.. COIltlna""C7.
cart:nst, thel"l va. no .... ranee of
iaLrL the
1ft7
uaared of
In the ,n.mt eaae, by
fee.
Indeed, II set forth
fee to be lvarded lIU.t be rnhanced. becau.e of
III adcU.tioll, the hsuea ,c'tlented. 1n _st Cri.tnal Jllltice
Ae::t Ippoln~t. are 110I"I roueine than. in tN ease at bar, inlolvi"l fer the
fn.
Because of the unuaall Ind COIIplt::1l; nat"n of thil ease. it il Ie",
dUflclllt to .pecify I -mst_". fee."
_at part Clft1.y I fev nI.ITGW i .....u of crlld.n.al law.
Howl:ver,._ cui dance 11 provided
reportfd decisiona in other cuu, .nd (2)
the Courtt, _
knowlldce of
(f) _ b i t tbs 1st h
It h
401
'.$\Ip,. 135, &51..-0 01.1. 'la. ItT5). I
j.n nfo", ca.e, the Court atlarded $60.(1) per haI&r for court ti_ Ie •
» :rear
The fe,. of the Criadnu
Ju.tlce Ae::t 11I'OII14 be wholly inadequate he",.
cust-.yfee.in tM. 'I"eal
Ctrhm
See, e.e.,
J72 F .S"pp. 1349 (If.D. Ill. 197"') ranee fl'O'l
$UO.oo to $500.00), and leo the '14rda cited thereinl
14' lWplOJe4 or IUnded by a d. In ri&hta orpalSltlon and/or las
1ft Hiller y
of $128.00 per hOlll" for tbe Inst apertenced.
'.SlIp,....18 (S.D.If.T. 1970) (.vense of $128.00 for .lllawye~, jwdor and
This Court hal indiC\ted on .evel'lll OCUsl_1 that ll1clwabl.
lb' surU-a
1Illt
Wli
In recent IntltNlt caaes,
juntor a ..oclate. to $500.00 per hour for EXpertl in the field.
Fifth Cil"Olit hal explained it:
(1)
the
510 '.3d 1090
Ho,t ,uet! asca h.ale inJolled the MMCI Lepl Defenae 'llIIIId, tvt II thl
by (1)
slnce ....d! d_. ¥nUb
It 6' Il AFlIrt!!'1'U
"trhtA'!
Cons MUla Cgrp., 438 '.2d Si. 88-90 (4th Clr. 1971).
(e)
d._.
Other drcuiu I"' 1ft ICCOrd. I.e., tfgpn J
'.3d 482, 486 (7th Cir. 1975);
Lea J
Ins
for 1111 out-of-cOW"t
.,ch non-b,al writ that _a W\necuurily perfol'M4
-e.
filSd
gr spntincqt.
wreU Mttled. t_t. whtl"l the anomer tnea the rio of no par-
at all i t the caM 11 l_t, II b
te • craattr court...._rded fet.
th. ,...._t litiption, he is entitled
SeI, e.I., Parker y Hlo.tthcvs, 411 F .SlIpp.
-7_
406 r.supp. 828, 834 (:t.O. Cal. 1976);
680, 68S-6S6 (~.D. Cal. 1974>1
US8 (!f.D. Ill. 197.).
l.!..tk.U..
In
Stantard Daily..,
Arensort..,
ZyrFhsr 64 P.It.D.
J12 P.Supp. U41,
the Court detFlWifted the rlIIIIber of hours
Jlnd a rusonable rate per hour, and then
of the CClntincency.
Board of Tnde
In Stanferd Danl
I.lWd
25. JI' an "'incen.t!"e- beeause
the Coun; found that 7.50 """-'ra had
~ 401 '.Supp. 835, 8S~860 (l1,D. Fla. 1975)($45.792.00);
.!!!!tl2. J6J"t.Supp. 194. 217 (E.D. Aric. 1913) ($8,000.(1)); d.
oontl~eltty
for the
~nt
011 to awrd $47.500.00 by the addition 01 $10,000.(1)
factor.
In the
~
case the Court relied 011 Can. 2
of the AM. Code of Professional lle.ponaibiUty, DisdpUn-.ry Ib.ale )-106(1}(8)(1969), which conte-pLates an in~ilSeti fee because of contlnC",des.
~ the oont1n&eltcy factor
vas 1D/..
the la~r.' no..-l bUllll4: rates.
~
~.IlI.2.!1> 64 '.R.D. at &87-688 (iUeplaearch and .ehure cue,
$47• .soo.oo fee).
Ib, "resulU obtained.- In the prelC!\t eaN will be th' injuncthe relief
beel\ upended and that S50.00 per hour -'l1d be a reasonable rate, totaUln,
$37,500.00 but theft
£!1u..h
£R1l!lt, J11 '.Sl.lpp. 1368. IJ1J (IC.D. Mhl. 197J) ($41,750.00); .l!P11...!.a.
uant.ed by the Court, if it h
Uanted.
The "re..utl cbtained- ltill be the
proper can.titut:l.onal operation of the City of r....bboc:lr.: HurdcipaJ. Election
Sylt . ., in a
(I)
III
~ner
Th'
that b fair to .U <:iti_••
wSrf£!!5;'
awtttte!lld .bill"
flf
the
.ttornm.
Thi. i., of COUrSE, • _tter fflr tile Ccurt's detel"lliJ\atloft ba.ed upoll
In!!:mJm, the e-rt ClWdrupled
it. (lbNrratiOl\ .011 knOllled&' of sudl factors . . repre_ted in naifttUht
(n2' .Supp. at IJ.S8).
In the pruent case the ind.hidual I'lalnt!fl'a are not payt", _ a d atl7
fFEa wNtaoe'ur.
is • __ e:r.
Lea"", of " - "oten,
Sinu any roe_ery 01 fees by I'4intlffs' c:oalUld
cle,.,.... h
fee, the fee for nalnt11'r.' oo'-lsel
sbouJ.. be adjusted .,.r4
I i . Helutl9'"
'''PR'td
by
the cUm!. ,.. the dre-rtanSl••
This actl. hal in"ohe'd hlp priority work by Plaintiff.' and Plaint11'fInterrenor'a attorneys.
the sau.
been uNd i. F_eeti. with. • conllidentioa of attflme,.1 feel.
flf C:l.r:U ltichu nailrtiff. ill the South hal lIlt"te:r heFI'l
lar al •
-.at. of li"elihood.
"a thi.
e--t
s~
bows fl'Oll uperienc:e, there .re
(~'.:zd
at 718).
btrSlely i.portot eonstltu-
IntEft'etIol' aflci the cla.u. ill tid. UtiCltiOO.
1obo
~.
Tbere an "'en fever lAwyers
acree to ftlll'uent these Plaintiff. and Plaintiff-IntU"tetlflr and
the cla.... iln'ol"feci 1d.thou.t &llJ' .elY.. « .uuranse of &llJ' fee.
tillftal and political richtl han been at bsue in thia ClH, and now a,.., at
.till f _ r ta",,-.I"I, eaped._ll,. 1ft the Lubbodl, TUiII. area
issueatill.
taka tile roellft_t.ation of nodal and et.ltrdc: _nflritiea in a
(b)
pla:
Ibe A!lSl<!It lDI91.."d Md tbc ",aulH obtained;
The lack flf _ .pec:lflc: pecuniary UlCUnt In"flbe'd in the caN: b
any Sltnle I Ibdutlfln •
Repre.eatation
Jlfter by the
fev aUflmeya 10110 1IlIOUld 'fOhmteer to represent the: Plaintiff. or naint1.ft-
to renect theN faetors.
(d
pf
It is difficult to iaIaclne a _ . "IIncIesirabl" caN, '1 th.t terwo hal
of lotaich PW_lff-lntl:rr_ol'
th.h case upoa the contine(llty of both a fa,,_ble rulilll by tIlh Ccluft MI' •
c:ourt~ftret"
(j) " " "Ynd"inblllu"
l'ld.ntlff-tnhrrenor'a attomey Wne Arth.r 11 bel,.. pdet
SJO.OO per bour by the
the UIOUIIt flf COWI"l feel.
not ill
"s me Court haa re-
c::ase like the pn'-lt ctte daaUencinc the
Cfl"e~tal
.et.tlftl.
"nd there are
fl ltGllld WIde"'"
he Md e -
IlEtbfld flf deeth•• alld th,
_e::tifln. of ft.pondbl, .mic:1pl1 pubUc flftlcl.b In a lcc:al
The ext~ difficulty in fiadine C:OUftSel tfl reprelEnt racial rainor'o-
_riled. if feel Ire tied to the atllflUnt rec:overed and dle _ n t h r,hti"dy
itiel ill ClM. like thh . , ... It be cfll'Ialdend by the Court al enhaocin,c the
_11, this would ipflre the "prcfeni.11 lkill and the c:c.plexlty ctl the IIfOrtI
_ n t flf f.1I tfl hi .warde'd.
In"obed, and c:ou.ld result In an iftlLlffic:1eftt .ward fflr sel"'tic:e. rendered••
~
_lit
GIft
Jl2 r.supp. 478, 484 (S.D.If.I. 1970).
(k)
Dtt NtU!'! _4 lmsth pC thl R!"5!f'''ien!l Nlatienship vitb the
bcleed. thtt tM _ _ U7
ift eootrcrrer.y hal little tfl dfl lIlth the _ n t of the .ttflmer' f,el
be Hen froo- ae"eral prhone...• riC1lt1 eases 1ft whid! III _et• .,. reUef
ft' .,,"iftl of th.
blb1BA
ea.e i. _what unclear fll'I this point. but
1ft &llJ' "em counael for tM nalntiffl ....d Phint.!ft-Intel"V<:nor ;and the
clauu herein a" not COUftti"l
That iI. 'lbile ia
~e
cauld nuonabl,.
expe~
Oft
'"roepeat buaia•••• v.l.th the.s elhaU.
lUQ"
an. it C&bt lie fI'OIler to
~~ th.
feu if
~Ml
Thi. h
a COIltiJui"l alld perhap, lIlcrathe relationll'dp tIlldl
(1)
in
A.wN,
to eertlty that on tlte
2""-day
of Jlraaary. 1979. serr:lce of •
tl'\l.S &ftCI (Qf"rect copy of the toreeoi", nailltitt,' &n4 Plaintitt-hcentnor"
the eller'lt. th1l factor 11 1ot\oU,. ab'nlt in the pre••t Utipd.....
MeIaonndu. ot Law on Avard. of Attorney. 'eu was ..ds lipan Defftlcb.nt. by
dllilar gIn
hand-deliveri"l the lillie to their attorn.,.. of record •• foll0V8l
Beall,e of the 1Isues lIl'liqlle to thh particular MwUct,.Ut,. and. tbe
particular stancc ot tbese Cit,. of lobboek otfichl.. who are Detendlrlu, it
all .... ~1,.
is dJ.fficult to find.
Hr. Jolwl Roaa. Cit,. Attorney
~~~i=; ~er. City Trial Attorn.,.
ca.., dte4
916 feul A.",en.
Lubbock. reDo' 7940l
..
cases, '-eyer.
Blled IIpc1l\
n.e
-,ltllla'" caM ia tIlia , _ .
tbe
Hr. Tnvi. D. Shelton
Hr. DeMh V. H~ill
Travi. D. Shelton & AHochte•
1507 Thirteent~ Streat
12lIl.I2D. cale tactort, and a _lide....tion ot the ott.r
allthorh,. d.ted. _d
~ented.
Lubbock, Ten. 19401
IlPOft ,boYe. the Plaintiff, .'-it that .. '-rly
nota at at laart $80.00 wouJ.4 be mti,..l,. ,.....,...bl. b
=,7.t~=O.="""'."'ft".---..
u.e pre_t litip-
""'....'",.;;....
Hon. for the out-of-cou.rt wort. ,lid $100.00 per IttOr'MJ per ..,. tor _cia ..,.
of trial.
Ttle Court ia reteJ'ft4 to Appm4ix ""-. SUpalation on Att0nM7S ' ' ' ' ,
""'r..,,".;.;;m;;;.;;-;Ot.;;r"n;;;,,,,,,,,,,,"'ftr_I;:'''''''''N-m-~-.
for tbe work perlol'Md. by each ot the naintU'f,' and Plaiatift..bt~_rt.
,nom.,.. in thi. litlption lip to tb. tl_ ot trial.
'or the rea....
~tecJ.,
ani . . the bad. of tIlo
IUthorl~
the Court sh0ld4 awrd ,tt_e,os tee. to ~ for t "
Nt torda
.
Plalautr.... 1'laI....
titt-Intenenor and. the cla'M. reprumte4 by tt. I'hlatitt. IIId PlailltlttIntenerlor ift thi. litiption
...........
--
~
l,iU•
......uma
lll.Jf-.A",. . .
tubbodr:. T
190401
..,.". . . " . , .
1006 Thi""",th Stl'ftt
Lubbodr:, Taas 19401
RDIDT Po 1I.'fI1lCl¥
School of "W
NUl& C. ftUI.
faa. fech Qthenity
Lubbock. Tau 1940t
.....
Metro fwer. Wte 1.506
tubbod:, T.... 11401
14OJTcu.A.",_
lubbodi:, TUli. 190401
IUIIL 1II• ..eII
P.
o. . .
4030
Llltlbodr:, Taas 1M01
A ~ 1'IAIW'l'D'J'-D'IIbIId.
""..-C/.'...,o
?./£.-11-
90 STAT. 2Ml
PUDUC LAW 94-SS9-OCT. 19,1976
Public Law 94-559
94th Congresl
Aa Act
Oct. 19. 1976
[5. 2218)
11ocOoil
Rilhll An01D"'"
Feu A.. udt
Act of 1976.
42 USC 1981
-.
42 USC 1981-
1983.llIU.
1916.
20 USC 1681.
26 USC I"..,.
42 USC 2000.t.
TIle CI.n
__·.
.I.~\.I.
r _ . . . . . Act <If 1171.
B_.
B. it ,MeW ~y ,'" S,M14 ..J
0' R,pru,r&IAli_ 0/ ,'"
URieu SttJIu 0/..4_"" ill C...,NM GJlltrMld, Thal this Ac:& rnal
be cited u "Th. Civil Rilthll AItomeI" Fees A.. ard. Act 187....
Sa:. 1I. Thal lb. Jtniliod St&lu* Md.ion 722 (~ USc. 1888) Ia
am...ded bl addinc &h. following: "In an1 a.ction or proetedingto
pro"i,ion of socLions 1877\.1878, 1878, 1980, and Ul81
the
RInsed SlMut.es, titl. IX Public .... w ~18J.or in all}' d"i1actioD
or J>~eding, bI or on boh&1f
lb. United ;)lala
Amuica, to
.nfofU, or charging a yiol.tion ofJ • J>ro"ision of &h. United SlI*
In&.emal Rey,nu. Code, or tilla VI
th. Civil Righll Ac:&
18840
Ill. court, in ita discretion, rna, allow U..l'revailing part.7. other &h••
&h. United SlaUs, a r.. ~n.abl, attorn"" fee as part of Ih. eosta.",
'D'Orce.
0' 0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
0'
"pprond OClOber 19, 1976.
UC;lsunvt HISTOn:
1l0ust RtrOlIT No. M-IS58 _ , . . , ... ".11. I~ ceo...... 1M J"iciooJ~
StNAn REPORT No. ....1011 tc-& I I . . . J....a...,~
CllNC;RESSIONAL IltalIlD. Vol 112 11.50... 11-2" 27~. -"0
S......
Od. I. _oWe
"_
APPENDIX (A)