986 F.2d 728 (5th Cir. 1993), 90-8014, League of United Latin American Citizens, Council No. 4434 v. Clements

Docket Nº:90-8014.
Citation:986 F.2d 728
Party Name:LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, COUNCIL NO. 4434, Plaintiffs-Appellees, and Jessie Oliver, et al., Intervening Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. William P. CLEMENTS, etc., et al., Defendants. Jim MATTOX, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Appellants, v. Judge F. Harold ENTZ, etc., Judge Sharolyn Wood, etc., and George S. Bayoud, Jr., etc., Defendants-A
Case Date:January 27, 1993
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 728

986 F.2d 728 (5th Cir. 1993)

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, COUNCIL NO. 4434,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

and

Jessie Oliver, et al., Intervening Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

William P. CLEMENTS, etc., et al., Defendants.

Jim MATTOX, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Appellants,

v.

Judge F. Harold ENTZ, etc., Judge Sharolyn Wood, etc., and

George S. Bayoud, Jr., etc., Defendants-Appellants,

and

Tom Rickhoff, Susan D. Reed, John J. Specia, Jr., Sid L.

Harle, Sharon Macrae and Michael P. Pedan, Bexar

County, Texas State District Judges, Appellants.

No. 90-8014.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

January 27, 1993

Order Granting Rehearing En Banc

Feb. 11, 1993.

Page 729

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 730

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 731

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 732

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 733

Ken Oden, Travis County Atty., David R. Richards, Sp. Counsel, Austin, TX, Mark H. Dettman, Atty., Midland, TX, for District Judges of Travis County.

Rolando L. Rios, Susan Finkelstein, San Antonio, TX, for League of United Latin American Citizens and Christina Moreno.

Walter L. Irvin, Dallas, TX, for amicus Brashear, et al. on behalf of appellees.

William L. Garrett, Garrett, Thompson & Chang, Dallas, TX, for League of United Latin American Citizens, et al.

Gabriell K. McDonald, Office of Arthur L. Walker, Austin, TX, for Legislative Black Caucus and Houston Lawyers Assoc.

Renea Hicks, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Javier Guajardo, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jim Mattox, Atty. Gen., Austin, TX, for Mattox, et al. and Bayoud (in his official capacity only).

Sherrilyn A. Ifill, NAACP Legal Defense and Educ. Fund, Inc., Julius Levonne Chambers, Dir. Counsel, New York City, for Houston Lawyers Assoc.

Edward B. Cloutman, III, Cloutman, Albright & Bower, E. Brice Cunningham, Dallas, TX, for Jesse Oliver, et al. (Dallas County plaintiffs/intervenors).

R. James George, Jr., John M. Harmon, Margaret H. Taylor, Graves, Dougherty, Hearon & Moody, Austin, TX, for Chapman, Stovall, Schraub, Cornyn, Hester, Paxson, Kirk & Walker.

Michael E. Tigar, Royal B. Lea, III, Austin, TX, for Bexar County, etc., et al.

Michael Ramsey, Ramsey & Tyson, Houston, TX, on behalf of appellant Wood, for amicus 27 incumbent Judges of Harris County.

Daniel M. Ogden, Paul Strohl, Washington Legal Foundation, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae, Washington Legal Foundation, in support of defendant-intervenor Dallas County Judge F. Harold Entz.

Thomas F. Rugg, Chief, County Dist. Attorney's Office, Beaumont, TX, for amicus curiae, Jefferson County Dist. Judges (except Floyd, etc.).

Robert G. Pugh, Robert G. Pugh, Jr., Shreveport, LA, Kenneth C. DeJean, Asst. Atty. Gen., LA Dept. of Justice, Baton Rouge, LA, for amicus Roemer, et al.

Cynthia Rougeou, Legal Div., Office of the Sec. of State, Baton Rouge, LA, for LA Secretary of State.

Michael Rubin, Rubin, Curry, Colvin & Joseph, Baton Rouge, LA, for LA Dist. Judges Assoc.

Susan E. Russ, David R. Boyd, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., Montgomery, AL., Fournier J. Gale, III, Maynard, Cooper, Frierson & Gale, P.C., Birmingham, AL, for amicus State of Ala.

Barbara R. Arnwine, Frank R. Parker, Robert B. McDuff, Washington, D.C., Ernest L. Johnson, T. Richardson Bobb, Baton Rouge, LA, Ulysses G. Thibodeaux, Lake Charles, LA, for Janice Clark, et al.

David C. Godbey, Jr., Robert H. Mow, Jr., Craig W. Budner, Bobby M. Roberts, Hughes & Luce, Dallas, TX, Sidney Powell, Strasburger & Price, Dallas, TX, for Entz.

J. Eugene Clements, Evelyn V. Keyes, Porter & Clements, Houston, TX, for Wood.

Seagal V. Wheatley, Donald R. Philbin, Jr., Oppenheimer, Rosenberg, Kelleher & Wheatley, Gerald H. Goldstein, Goldstein, Goldstein & Hilley, Joel J. Pullen, Kaufman, Becker, Pullen & Reibach, San Antonio, TX, for Rickhoff, et al.

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

Page 734

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court

  1. BACKGROUND ........................................................ 739 A. Texas' Method of Electing District Court Judges ............. 739 B. Procedural History .......................................... 740 II. THE ACCEPTED FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING SECTION 2 VOTE DILUTION CLAIMS .......................................................... 741 A. The Threshold Inquiry: The Gingles Factors .................. 742 1. Size and Geographical Compactness of the Minority Group . 743 2. Political Cohesiveness of the Minority Group ............ 743 3. Legally Significant White Bloc Voting ................... 744 B. The Broader Inquiry: The Totality of the Circumstances ...... 747 1. The Senate Report Factors ............................... 747 a. History of discrimination touching the rights of minorities to participate in the political process 747 b. Extent of racially polarized voting ................. 747 c. Use of voting practices that enhance the opportunity for discrimination ................................ 749 d. Minority access to the slating process .............. 750 e. Lingering socioeconomic effects of discrimination ... 750 f. Use of racial appeals in campaigns .................. 750 g. Extent to which minority candidates have been elected to public office .......................... 750 h. Responsiveness of elected officials to particular needs of the minority group ....................... 752 i. Tenuousness of the policy underlying the challenged practice .......................................... 752 2. Other Relevant Factors, Including Racial Animus in the Electorate ............................................ 753 C. The Ultimate Inquiry: Unequal Opportunity to Participate on Account of Race or Color .................................. 754 III. THE PROPOSED BALANCING FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING SECTION 2 VOTE DILUTION CLAIMS ................................................. 755 A. The Accepted Role of State Interests in Section 2 Analysis .. 756 B. The Proposed Role for State Interests in Section 2 Analysis . 756 C. Problems with the Proposed Balancing Framework .............. 757 1. The Legal Problem ....................................... 757 a. Congressional intent ................................ 757 b. Federalism principles ............................... 758 c. The Supreme Court's decision in Houston Lawyers' Association ....................................... 760 2. The Practical Problem ................................... 763 3. Summation ............................................... 764 D. Applying the Proposed Balancing Framework in this Case: Evaluating Texas' Asserted Interests ...................... 764 1. Identifying the Threatened State Interests .............. 764 2. Scrutinizing the Threatened State Interests ............. 765 a. Texas' interest in preserving the administrative advantages of the current at-large system ......... 766 b. Texas' interest in allowing judges to specialize .... 766 c. Texas' linkage interest ............................. 767 d. Texas' interest in preserving the function of district court judges as sole decision-makers ..... 769 3. Assigning a Weight to the Threatened State Interests .... 772 IV. REVIEW OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S SECTION 2 LIABILITY FINDINGS ....... 772 A. Standard of Appellate Review ................................ 773 B. Review of the District Court's Vote Dilution Findings Under the Accepted Section 2 Framework .......................... 774 1. Statistical Methodology ................................. 774 2. Review of District Court's Vote Dilution Findings ....... 776 a. Bexar County ........................................ 777 (i) Gingles factors ................ 777 (ii) Totality of circumstances factors ...................... 778 (iii) Ultimate vote dilution finding . 780 b. Dallas County ....................................... 780 (i) Gingles factors ................ 780 (ii) Totality of circumstances factors ...................... 781 (iii) Ultimate vote dilution finding . 785 c. Ector County ........................................ 785 (i) Gingles factors ................ 786 (ii) Totality of circumstances factors ...................... 786 (iii) Ultimate vote dilution finding . 788...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP