Bradas v. Rapides Parish Police Jury

• Decision Date: 14 February 1975
• Docket Number: No. 74-2422,74-2422
• Citation: 508 F.2d 1109
• Parties: John BRADAS et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. RAPIDES PARISH POLICE JURY et al., Defendants-Appellants, Louis Berry et al., Intervenors-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 1109

508 F.2d 1109

John BRADAS et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. RAPIDES PARISH POLICE JURY et al., Defendants-Appellants, Louis Berry et al., Intervenors-Appellees.

No. 74-2422.

United states Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 14, 1975, Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied March 19, 1975.

James J. Brady, Camille F. Gravel, Jr., Edwin O. Ware, Dist. Atty., Alfred B. Shapiro, Asst. Dist. Atty., Alexandria, La., for Rapides Parish Police Jury, and others.

J. Michael Percy, Louis Berry, Alexandria, La., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Richard B. Millspaugh, Opelousas, La., for intervenors.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

Before GEWIN and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges, and NICHOLS, ^* Associate Judge.

SIMPSON, Circuit Judge:

By a judgment rendered May 1, 1974, amended and supplemented May 10, 1974, the district court struck down as violative of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution a reapportionment plan (the Le Blanc plan) for the Rapides Parish Police Jury and School Board he had both instituted and approved three years earlier. ¹ The May, 1974 judgment ² is the subject of the instant appeal by the Rapides Parish Police Jury and School Board. That judgment, after nullifying the Le Blanc plan, adopted a substitute plan, discussed in detail hereinafter, and provided that the terms of the then current members of the Police Jury and School Board should terminate upon the commissioning of their successors.

Under the Le Blanc plan the eleven wards ³ of Rapides Parish were divided into one single-member and three multimember districts for the purpose of electing 18 officers to the parish police jury as well as to the parish school board. ⁴ The Le Blanc plan separated the parish as follows: District 'A' consisted of Wards 1 and 8 with a combined population of 64,649 and was to elect 10 members to each body; District 'B' consisted of Wards 9, 10 and 11 with a combined population of 33,300 and was to elect 5 members to each body; District 'C' consisted of Wards 2, 3, 4 and 6 with a combined population of 14,073 and was to elect 2 members; and District 'D' consisted of Wards 5 and 7 with a combined population of 6,236 and was to elect a single member to each body. The population figures are taken from the 1970 Federal Census. The plan also contained residency requirements for the elected officials. For example, in District A, 8 of the 10 members were required to reside in Ward 1 and the other 2 were required to reside in Ward 8.

Of Rapides Parish's 118,078 residents 27.9% Or 32,975 are black, with most of the blacks residing in Alexandria, population 64,650, the only sizable city in the parish. The relatively concentrated population of Alexandria fills Ward 1 and a portion of Ward 8. Standing alone, Ward 1 is 42% Black and 58% White. When combined with Ward 8 to form District A, however, the percentages change to 37% Black and 63% White. No black has ever been elected to serve on the parish police jury or school board.

Approximately one year subsequent to the Le Blanc plan's judicial implementation, the United States brought suit in the district court seeking to nullify the plan because it lacked the prior approval of the Attorney General of the United States pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Title 42, U.S.C., 1973c. The district judge dismissed that suit holding that 'Section 5 does not require prior approval of reapportionment plans submitted to a United States District Court in the trial of an adversary proceeding.' United States v. Rapides Parish School Board et al., Civil Action Number 19,209 W.D.La., October 25, 1973. In footnote 1 to that opinionorder, the trial judge made it clear that during the course of the Le Blanc suit he was cognizant of Fifteenth Amendment rights and considered them at various times throughout the proceedings. ⁵

The present suit was filed by ten parish citizens, both blacks and whites, alleging that the Le Blanc plan violates the 'one man-one vote' rule and results in dilution of the black vote in contravention of the Fifteenth Amendment. Five unsuccessful black candidates for parish office, Louis Berry and others, intervened, generally supporting plaintiffs' claims. Concentrating on their dilution claim, plaintiffs/intervenors/appellees pointed out that no black has ever been elected to a parish office; that the strength of the black vote in Ward 1 was diluted by the Le Blanc plan from 42% To 37% By combining it with Ward 8 to form District A; that a Ward 8 candidate can be elected on the strength of Ward 1's vote and will therefore be more responsive to Ward 1; and that the political process is not as open and free as possible because the size of Ward 1 makes it relatively expensive for a young candidate with moderate means to run for parish office, thus placing him at a serious disadvantage.

The district court found by its May 1974 judgment that the July 26, 1971 judgment adopting the Le Blanc Plan did not sufficiently consider Fifteenth Amendment rights, though such rights were represented in the prior suit, and nullified that plan. The court proceeded to implement its own reapportionment scheme which divided the parish into nine single member election districts. The effect of this new plan is to cut by 50% The number of officials elected to each parish body from eighteen to nine. The police jury and school board moved the district court to set aside its judgment and grant a new trial. Upon denial of that motion, this appeal followed.

Appellants urge three major contentions on appeal: (a) that the Fifteenth Amendment issue dealing with alleged dilution of the black vote had been previously ruled upon by the district court thus making applicable the doctrine of res judicata; (b) that the appellees failed to sustain their burden of proof as to their Fifteenth Amendment claim in accordance with the standards and guidelines established in White v. Regester, 1973, 412 U.S. 755, 93 S.Ct. 2332, 37 L.Ed.2d 314, and its progeny; and (c) that the district court exceeded its authority by ordering a new reapportionment plan requiring a 50% Reduction in the number of officials elected to parish office in contravention of Sixty-Seventh Minnesota State Senate v. Beens, 1972, 406 U.S. 187, 92 S.Ct. 1477, 32 L.Ed.2d 1. Since we find merit in appellants' second contention, regarding the burden of proof, we do not reach the other two points raised.

Allegations of dilution of minority voting strength are not new to this Court. See Reese v. Dallas County, Alabama, 5 Cir. 1974, 505 F.2d 879; Turner v. McKeithen, 5 Cir. 1973, 490 F.2d 191; Zimmer v. McKeithen, 5 Cir. 1973, 485 F.2d 1297 (en banc decision reversing 5 Cir. 1972, 467 F.2d 1381). Following the mandate of the Supreme Court in White v. Regester, 1973, 412 U.S. 755, 93 S.Ct. 2332, 37 L.Ed.2d 314, we have consistently recognized that 'access to the political process and not population (is) the barometer of dilution of minority voting strength.' Reese, supra, 505 F.2d at 882; Turner, supra, 490 F.2d at 193-194; Zimmer, supra, 485 F.2d at 1303. Plaintiffs' burden, then, 'is to produce evidence to support findings that the political processes leading to nomination and election were not equally open to participation by the group in question-- that its members had less opportunity than did other residents in the district to participate in the political processes and to elect legislators of their choice.' White v. Regester, supra, 412 U.S. at 766, 93 S.Ct. at 2339. It is in the failure to meet this burden that we find appellees' proof fatally deficient.

In Turner we set forth a number of factors drawn from White and Zimmer relevant to a determination of whether a minority group actually lacks meaningful access to the political process:

'Among the factors entitled to consideration are the continuing effects of past discrimination on the minority group's ability to participate in the political process, the opportunity for the minority group to participate in the candidate selection process, the responsiveness of elected officials to the particular concerns of the minority group, and the strength of the state interest in multi-member of at-large voting.

Furthermore, both White v. Regester and Zimmer recognized that the presence of various structural voting devices such...