Ramos v. Koebig, 79-2316

• Decision Date: 05 March 1981
• Docket Number: No. 79-2316,79-2316
• Citation: 638 F.2d 838
• Parties: Andrew RAMOS, Jesus Trinidad, Jr. and Bruno Martinez, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Alfred H. KOEBIG et al., Defendants-Appellees. . Unit A
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 838

638 F.2d 838

Andrew RAMOS, Jesus Trinidad, Jr. and Bruno Martinez Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Alfred H. KOEBIG et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 79-2316.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Unit A

March 5, 1981.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied April 2, 1981.

Joaquin G. Avila, San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Ralph Keehn, Seguin, Tex., Foster, Lewis, Langley, Gardner & Banack, Emerson Banack, Jr., San Antonio, Tex., for defendants-appellees.

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

Before GOLDBERG, POLITZ and SAM D. JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.

SAM D. JOHNSON, Circuit Judge:

This appeal involves the recurring issues of distinguishing between legislative and court-ordered reapportionment plans, determining the procedures to be undertaken by a district court following judicial invalidation of a prior plan, and determining when a plan enacted in response to judicial invalidation of a prior plan is subject to the preclearance requirements of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. After considering plans submitted both by plaintiffs and the City Council, the district court approved the Council's plan without modification, and ordered the Council to conduct elections under the plan. The district court also denied plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees under the Civil Rights Attorneys' Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988. For the reasons that follow, the judgment of the district court is reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

I.

The City of Seguin, Texas, is governed by a City Council, which consists of eight members and a mayor. The mayor is elected at-large and the eight councilmen are elected from four wards. According to the 1970 census, the City's population is approximately 15,934 persons, of which approximately 6,378 or 40.02 percent are Mexican-American and 2,337 or 14.67 percent are black. Although the two minority populations constitute approximately 54.69 percent of the City's total number, the minority community has never been able to elect more than two representatives, or one-fourth of the council, at any one time.

Efforts to redistrict the City's ward system preceded this lawsuit. In 1976, the City Council redistricted the boundaries of two wards. The plan, which was designed to replace the then-existing 1962 plan, was submitted to the United States Attorney General pursuant to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The plan was withdrawn from the preclearance process, however, and the 1977 Council elections were held under the 1962 plan.

After the 1977 election, City officials met with County officials for the purpose of making adjustments in the voting precinct boundaries. When it appeared that these adjustments would not become effective in time for the 1978 municipal elections, plaintiffs filed suit on February 17, 1978, to enjoin the Council and City Secretary from conducting the 1978 elections under the 1962 plan.

Because the 1962 plan contained a total population deviation between the most populated and least populated ward of 109 percent, the Council did not contest the unconstitutionality of the plan. On March 15, 1978, shortly after the complaint was filed, the district court entered an order, upon the joint motion of plaintiffs and defendants, enjoining the use of the 1962 plan for the April 1, 1978, municipal elections. As a result of the injunction, the 1978 scheduled election was not held.

On April 3, 1979, the district court conducted a hearing, at which both plaintiffs and the Council presented redistricting plans. The Council's proposal was presented through the testimony of its expert, who was responsible for formulating the plan. The Council also presented the testimony of the mayor and a councilman. Both supported the Council's proposal, and although acknowledging that plaintiffs' proposal would provide greater minority participation in the City Council, expressed the opinion that the Council's plan was better overall.

Plaintiffs presented two proposals through the testimony of one of the plaintiffs, Jesus Trinidad. Trinidad testified that, whereas the Council's plan would perpetuate an historical dilution of minority voting strength, plaintiffs' plans would ensure minority participation in the municipal political machinery.

On April 13, 1979, after examining the evidence presented, the district court adopted without modification the Council's plan as "the official ward boundaries of the City of Seguin, Texas," and ordered the Council to divide the city into wards and conduct elections according to the plan. On the issue of plaintiffs' prayer for an award of attorneys' fees, the district court determined that an award was not justified because the Council was attempting to remedy the Constitutional violation at the time the lawsuit was filed, and because the district court adopted the Council's, rather than plaintiffs', plan.

When it became apparent that the Council did not intend to submit the plan for federal preclearance under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c, plaintiffs in Trinidad v. Koebig, No. 79-2750, 638 F.2d 846 (1981), also decided this day, brought an enforcement proceeding to compel preclearance, and to prevent the City from conducting the election scheduled for August 11, 1979, until preclearance had been obtained. The district court in Trinidad held that the plan approved in the case sub judice was a court-ordered, rather than a legislatively enacted plan, and therefore was exempt from the section 5 process. See Connor v. Johnson, 402 U.S. 690, 91 S.Ct. 1760, 29 L.Ed.2d 268 (1971). Consequently, the district court dismissed plaintiffs' suit, and the 1979 election was held as scheduled.

In the case sub judice, plaintiffs argue that the plan submitted by the Council and approved by the district court dilutes minority voting strength, and therefore violates the strict standards applicable to court-ordered plans. Plaintiffs also complain that the district court erred in refusing to award attorneys' fees under the Civil Rights Attorneys' Fees Awards Act of 1976. Alternatively, plaintiffs in Trinidad argue that the plan is a legislative, or court-approved plan, rather than a court-ordered plan, and that the district court therefore erred in passing upon its constitutionality without first requiring the Council to enact the plan and obtain section 5 preclearance under the Voting Rights Act. Because of the interrelated nature of both cases, and the divergent standards applicable to legislatively enacted and court ordered plans, we proceed first to a determination of which standards are applicable to the plan in the case sub judice.

II.

In East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636, 96 S.Ct. 1083, 47 L.Ed.2d 296 (1976), the Supreme Court held that court-ordered reapportionment plans resulting from a federal court's equitable jurisdiction are not subject to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. In rejecting the Government's argument that the section 5 preclearance procedures must be complied with prior to adoption by a federal district court of a reapportionment plan submitted to it on behalf of local legislative body that is subject to the Act, the Court stated that "(h)ad the ... police jury reapportioned itself on its own authority, clearance under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act would clearly have been required," citing Connor v. Waller, 421 U.S. 656, 95 S.Ct. 2003, 44 L.Ed.2d 486 (1975). The Court, however, concluded that the plan submitted to the district court in East Carroll was not such a "legislative" plan because (1) the police jury did not purport to apportion itself, but merely submitted a proposed plan to the district court; and (2) the police jury did not have the legislative authority to apportion itself, because the enabling legislation had been invalidated by the Attorney General of the United States pursuant to section 5. The Court concluded that "(s)ince the reapportionment scheme was submitted and adopted pursuant to court order, the preclearance procedures of § 5 do not apply," citing Connor v. Johnson, 402 U.S. 690, 691, 91 S.Ct. 1760, 1761, 29 L.Ed.2d 268 (1971).

Two years later, in Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535, 98 S.Ct. 2493, 57 L.Ed.2d 411 (1978), the Supreme Court had occasion to readdress the principles applicable to distinguishing between legislative and court-ordered plans. In that case, after declaring the existing at-large system of electing the City Council of Dallas, Texas, to be unconstitutional, the district court afforded the Council an opportunity to prepare an acceptable plan. After passing a resolution which stated that the City Council intended to enact an ordinance to adopt a new plan, the Council submitted the new plan to the district court for approval. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court announced in an oral opinion that the Council's plan was acceptable. Two days later, the Council enacted an ordinance adopting the plan, and the district court subsequently issued a memorandum opinion again sustaining the Council's plan as a valid legislative act. On appeal, this Court reversed, and held that the district court erred in evaluating the Council's actions only under constitutional standards, and neglecting to apply the stricter standards required by East Carroll and prior cases for court-ordered plans.

The Supreme Court reversed. In an opinion joined in by Justice Stewart, Justice White distinguished East Carroll from Wise on three grounds. First, the district court in Wise reviewed the plan as a legislative plan, whereas in East Carroll the local bodies submitted plans in response to court orders and did not purport to reapportion themselves. Second, state law prevented the bodies in East Carroll from reapportioning themselves; the enabling legislation had been disapproved by the Attorney General under section 5 of the...