Citizens for a Better Gretna v. City of Gretna, La., 86-3863
| Decision Date | 23 December 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-3863,86-3863 |
| Citation | 834 F.2d 496 |
| Parties | CITIZENS FOR A BETTER GRETNA, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF GRETNA, LOUISIANA, et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Jon A. Gegenheimer, City Atty., Gretna, La., for defendants-appellants.
Harold E. Molaison, Gretna, La., for Mayor Ronnie C. Harris.
Alice M. Jacobs, Jack W. Jernigan, III, Ronald L. Wilson, New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before GOLDBERG, JOHNSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
In this minority vote dilution case, the City of Gretna, Louisiana appeals the finding that at-large elections of Gretna aldermen violate Sec. 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as amended in 1982. 1 This Circuit set out guidelines for evaluating minority vote dilution claims in Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F.2d 1297 (5th Cir.1973) (en banc) aff'd on other ground sub nom., East Carrol Parish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636, 96 S.Ct. 1083, 47 L.Ed.2d 296 (1976) (per curiam). The district court followed Zimmer guidelines in finding a Sec. 2 violation within Gretna's at-large aldermanic election scheme.
Closely following after the district court's opinion of May 12, 1986, 636 F.Supp. 1113, is the Supreme Court's Sec. 2 minority vote dilution case, Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986). Appellant City of Gretna claims Gingles replaces the pre-existing vote dilution analysis of Zimmer, and necessitates remand of this case. We disagree, and affirm the district court's decision.
At the heart of a Sec. 2 vote dilution claim lies the issue of whether minorities have an equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. Gingles set out a three-part foundation for proving a Sec. 2 vote dilution claim: first, that the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district; second, that the minority is politically cohesive; and third, that the majority votes sufficiently as a bloc usually to defeat the minority preferred candidate. Gingles, 106 S.Ct. at 2766-67. Based upon our reading of Gingles, we find the district court's analysis sufficient to establish a violation of Sec. 2 existing in the at-large elections of Gretna aldermen. We first address the effect of Gingles on the framework previously set out by Zimmer. Then we discuss Gingles' emphasis on racial bloc voting and its application to the situation in Gretna.
Appellees Citizens For a Better Gretna 2 brought this class action on behalf of black registered voters in the City of Gretna. The class alleged violations of Sec. 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as amended in 1982, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The district court upheld the class' claim for relief under Sec. 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and did not address the Sec. 1983 claim or the constitutional claims.
The trial court determined the Sec. 2 violation from factual findings structured along Zimmer guidelines. 3 We find none of these determinations to be clearly erroneous. 4 Hence, the issue presented is whether the factual findings support a Sec. 2 violation under Gingles.
Appellant urges this Court to reverse the district court opinion because it relies on Zimmer. We are asked to remand the case for consideration under Gingles. We cannot agree that the Supreme Court in Gingles made the Zimmer analysis obsolete. In fact, the Court relied substantially on Zimmer as a foundation for the analytical framework prescribed for Sec. 2 claims. 5
Taken from the Senate Judiciary Committee Report accompanying the 1982 amendment of the Voting Rights Act, the factors to be considered in evaluating a Sec. 2 claim include the following:
(1) The extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political subdivision that touched the right of the members of the minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise to participate in the democratic process;
(2) The extent to which voting in the elections of the state or political subdivision is racially polarized;
(3) The extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, anti-single shot provisions, or other voting practices or procedures that may enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the majority group;
(4) If there is a candidate slating process, whether the members of a minority group have been denied access to that process;
(5) The extent to which members of the minority group in the state or political subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as education, employment and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process;
(6) Whether political campaigns have been characterized by overt or subtle racial appeals;
(7) The extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction.
The Gingles opinion traced the Senate Report guidelines (Zimmer factors) 6 in evaluating the North Carolina legislative election scheme there at issue. The Court found a Sec. 2 violation based upon the totality of circumstances in North Carolina districts: "racially polarized voting, the legacy of official discrimination in voting, education, housing, employment, and health services; and the persistence of campaign appeals to racial prejudice acted in concert with the multi-member districting scheme to impair the ability of geographically insular and politically cohesive groups of black voters to participate equally in the political process and to elect candidates of their choice." Gingles, 106 S.Ct. at 2782.
The district court found similar conditions existing in Gretna by following virtually identical guidelines. We briefly summarize these factual findings: (1) No black person has ever been elected alderman in Gretna, despite its population being thirty percent black. (2) Only two black candidates have run for alderman in Gretna; these in three elections. (3) Of the three Gretna aldermanic elections with black candidates, only two were capable of being statistically analyzed. (4) The two elections involved black candidate Leo Jones. He received the support of a majority of Gretna's black voters but little or no support from white voters. (5) In the 1984 presidential primary and the 1979 race for Louisiana Secretary of State, Gretna's black voters overwhelmingly supported black candidates and white voters largely did not. (6) Statistical data presented to the trial court in a correlation and regression analysis and in a homogenous precinct analysis support the existence of racial polarization (racial bloc voting) in Gretna's elections. (7) A history of de jure and de facto discrimination contributes to depressed socio-economic conditions for Gretna's blacks and a low black voter turnout. (8) An unofficial slating system excludes black candidates from Gretna city elections. (9) The Gretna majority vote requirement combines with the at-large system to produce dilution of black voting power. These factual findings are amply supported by the record, so we next consider the district court's finding of legally significant racial bloc voting.
Racial bloc voting is the linchpin of a Sec. 2 vote dilution claim, and plaintiffs must prove it. Gingles, 106 S.Ct. at 2764. The district court found significant racial bloc voting in Gretna based upon statistical data presented in a correlation and regression analysis 7 and a homogenous precinct analysis. 8
Appellant claims the district court's finding of bloc voting fails to conform to the standards set out by the Supreme Court in Gingles. Appellant specifies three deficiencies in the district court's analysis: (1) the district court based its finding of bloc voting on the statistical methods of appellee's expert, which are not the same methods as those relied upon by the Supreme Court in Gingles; (2) the district court considered statistical evidence of racial bloc voting in non-aldermanic elections, specifically the 1984 presidential primary in which Jesse Jackson ran and the 1979 race for Louisiana Secretary of State featuring black candidate Ben Jeffers; (3) by looking only at elections in which blacks were candidates, the district court focused on the race of the candidate rather than the race of the voter, which is contrary to Gingles. We address these claims in turn.
The statistical methods applied in Gretna vary to some extent from those used in Gingles. The Supreme Court in Gingles stated the purpose of the bloc voting inquiry to be two-fold: "To ascertain whether minority group members constitute a politically cohesive unit and to determine whether whites vote sufficiently as a bloc usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidates." 106 S.Ct. at 2769. The Court did not mandate any particular statistical method for evaluating vote dilution claims. 9 It merely accepted the methods presented, noting them to be standard in the literature. Gingles, 106 S.Ct. at 2768 n. 20.
Appellants attack the validity of the regression analysis presented by appellee's expert and relied upon by the district court. This correlation and regression analysis correlates by precinct the race of the voter with votes received by a particular candidate. 10 Appellant claims that its regression analysis is superior to that of appellee's expert. Resisting the obfuscation created by dueling statisticians, we address appellant's core criticism: Leo Jones, who was one of two blacks who ran for Gretna alderman and the only black aldermanic candidate whose election results could be analyzed statistically, was not the aldermanic preference of Gretna's black voters.
Jones ran for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perez v. Abbott
...expensive,' the [Supreme] Court espoused a 'flexible, fact intensive test.'" Id. The Court cited Citizens for a Better Gretna v. City of Gretna, La., 834 F.2d 496, 502 (5th Cir. 1987) for the proposition that "Gingles 'suggests flexibility in the face of sparse data.'" The Fifth Circuit rem......
-
League of United Latin American Citizens, Council No. 4434 v. Clements
...of a minority candidate. See, e.g., Campos v. City of Baytown, 840 F.2d 1240, 1245 (5th Cir.1988); Citizens for a Better Gretna v. City of Gretna, 834 F.2d 496, 503 (5th Cir.1987). For this reason, courts usually focus on those elections involving black or Hispanic candidates in examining w......
-
Jeffers v. Clinton, H-C-89-004.
..."exogenous elections alone could not prove racially polarized voting" within the challenged district. Citizens for a Better Gretna v. City of Gretna, 834 F.2d 496, 502 (5th Cir.1987). Rather, such data can be a reliable source for determining polarization only when the "aggregate representa......
-
Williams v. City of Dallas
...primarily—be those elections in which a serious black candidate276 was opposed by a white candidate. Citizens for a Better Gretna v. City of Gretna, 834 F.2d 496, 503 (5th Cir.1987); Campos v. Baytown, 840 F.2d 1240, 1245 (5th 316. There are several reasons for this focus on white versus Af......
-
Table of Cases
..., 775 F.Supp. 1291 (N.D. Cal. 1991), §7:27 Citizens for a Better Gretna v. City of Gretna , 636 F.Supp. 1113, 1132 (E.D.La. 1986), aff’d , 834 F.2d 496 (5th Cir. 1987), Form 7-26 Citric Acid Litigation, 191 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 1999), §4:75 City Auto, Inc. v. Exxon Co., 806 F.Supp. 567 (E.D.......