Washington v. Tensas Parish School Bd., 86-4488

• Decision Date: 23 June 1987
• Docket Number: No. 86-4488,86-4488
• Citation: 819 F.2d 609
• Parties: 39 Ed. Law Rep. 1007 Eloise WASHINGTON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TENSAS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 609

819 F.2d 609

39 Ed. Law Rep. 1007

Eloise WASHINGTON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TENSAS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 86-4488.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 23, 1987.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied July 29, 1987.

Benjamin Jones, Jones and Smith, Monroe, La., for plaintiffs-appellants.

John D. Crigler, Asst. Dist. Atty., St. Joseph, La., James D. Caldwell, Dist. Atty., Tallulah, La., for defendants-appellees.

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

Before POLITZ, JOHNSON, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

POLITZ, Circuit Judge:

Invoking the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1973, et seq., the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments, and 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1981 and 1983, plaintiffs-appellants challenged the apportionment of Tensas Parish, Louisiana, for purposes of electing members to the school board and the Police Jury, the parish governing authority. The district court received reapportionment plans submitted by the plaintiffs, the defendants, and by a special master it had appointed. The court accepted the plan prepared by the special master. Finding that plan to be constitutionally and statutorily sound, we affirm.

Background

Tensas Parish is a small, predominantly rural parish abutting the Mississippi River in northeast Louisiana. Historically, blacks were discouraged from voting and running for office. That unfortunate racial debasement no longer exists, but there remains what might be considered a vestige, racially polarized voting.

In 1978, responding to the one person/one vote mandate of Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964), the court ordered the parish divided into seven single-member districts for election of police jury and school board members. Four of the districts were majority white and three were majority black in three relevant enumerations: the number of registered voters, the voting age population, and the total population. In subsequent elections, candidates from the majority race have consistently won elections.

The 1980 census revealed a total population of 8,525 and malapportionment requiring redistricting to regain the required electoral balance. The parish population was 54.65% black and 45.23% white. By 1985, the percentage of blacks had shifted slightly to 54%. The 1980 voting age populations were almost equal, 50.5% black and 49.5% white. The 1986 voter registration statistics reflect, however, that the qualified electorate parishwide was 51.4% white and 48.6% black.

When the responsible legislative bodies failed to reapportion pursuant to the 1980 census results, the instant suit was filed. As noted, the court adopted the reapportionment plan submitted by a special master. Appellants challenge the constitutionality of that plan and seek adoption of the plan they submitted.

The special master's plan and that submitted by the plaintiffs both propose seven districts, with a median population of 1,217. The proposals are identical with regard to Districts One through Five. The dispute at bar involves Districts Six and Seven, basically the town of Waterproof, which is largely black, and the surrounding rural area, which is largely white. District Six, as adopted by the court, consists of the rural area, plus a small number of blacks and whites within the town limits of Waterproof. District Seven comprises the remainder of Waterproof.

Plaintiffs would include in District Six more of the black population of Waterproof and thus people four of the districts with a clear black majority in all three relevant populations. Specifically, plaintiffs would shift the district lines so that District Six would contain a sufficient portion of the black population of Waterproof to render the district 60% black, giving plaintiffs what they consider a "safe" district. The deviation from the median population under the special master's plan is 2.2 percent; under plaintiffs' proposed plan the deviation is 3.5 percent.

The district court chose the special master's plan as the basis for its reapportionment decree, finding that it did not dilute black voting strength and accomplished a fair reapportionment of the parish, considering, inter alia, natural, historic and geographical boundaries, population demographics, and existing district configurations.

Discussion

Our task on appeal is to review the constitutionality and statutory validity of the reapportionment plan ordered by the district court. To pass muster, the plan must conform to constitutional mandates and the legislative directives contained in the Voting Rights Act. The plan must comply with the one person/one vote requirement, and must assure that the vote of minorities will not be unfairly diluted. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973; Wyche v. Madison Parish Police Jury, 635 F.2d 1151 (5th Cir.1981); Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F.2d 1297 (5th Cir.1973), aff'd sub nom. East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636, 96 S.Ct. 1083, 47 L.Ed.2d 296 (1976). In constructing an apportionment plan the court is to give appropriate consideration to historic political units and to natural, historic, and geographic boundaries. Wyche, 635 F.2d at 1158.

There is no question that the court-approved plan fully complies with the one person/one vote rubric. Nor is there any suggestion that the accepted plan disrupts historical, geographic, or political boundaries. To the contrary, these factors were given full measure. Nevertheless, plaintiffs contend that the plan dilutes black voting strength in Tensas Parish. They reason that because blacks constitute 54% of the total parish population, four of the seven districts should be majority black and thus "safe" for black candidates.

Whether racial voter dilution does or does not exist is a question of fact for the trier of fact. The district court's finding in that regard is protected by the clearly erroneous shield of Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); Thornburg v. Gingles, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986); Velasquez v. City of Abilene, 725 F.2d 1017 (5th Cir.1984). In Thornburg, the court stated:

We reaffirm our view that the clearly-erroneous test of Rule 52(a) is the appropriate standard for appellate review of a finding of vote dilution. As both amended Sec. 2 and its legislative history make clear, in evaluating a statutory claim of...