Barnett v. City of Chicago, 92 C 1683.
| Decision Date | 09 June 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 92 C 2666.,No. 92 C 2104.,No. 92 C 1683.,92 C 1683.,92 C 2104.,92 C 2666. |
| Citation | 969 F.Supp. 1359 |
| Parties | Richard BARNETT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Defendants, and Carole Bialczak, et al., Defendant-Intervenors. Mary BONILLA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Defendants, and Carole Bialczak, et al., Defendant-Intervenors. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Judson H. Miner, Miner Barnhill & Galland, Chicago, IL, Nathaniel R. Howse, Jr., Howse, Howse, Neville & Gray, Chicago, IL, Jacqueline A. Berrien, New York City, for Richard Barnett, Eddie Reed.
James Michael Scanlon, Rieff & Scanlon, Chicago, IL, for Bd. of Election Com'rs of Chicago.
Paul L. Strauss, Jeffrey Irvine Cummings, Mark Steven Kende, Judson H. Miner, Miner Barnhill & Galland, Chicago, IL, for Ed H Smith, Allan Streeter, Helen Shiller, John O. Steele, Dorothy Tillman, Lawrence S. Bloom, Robert Shaw, Jesse J. Evans, Bobby L. Rush, Percy Giles, William M. Beavers, Toni Preckwinkle, Rickey Hendon, Joe Moore, Arenda Troutman, Shirley A. Coleman, Virgil E. Jones, Jesse Miller, Sam Burrell, Political Action Conference of Illinois.
Kelly Raymond Welsh, Andrew S. Mine, City of Chicago, Law Dept. Corp. Counsel, Chicago, IL, Susan R. Lichtenstein, Ameritech Corp., Chicago, IL, for Richard M. Daley.
Kelly Raymond Welsh, Andrew S. Mine, City of Chicago, Law Dept. Corp. Counsel, Chicago, IL, Michael Levinson, Bd. of Election Com'r, Chicago, IL, Susan R. Lichtenstein, Ameritech Corp., Chicago, IL, for City of Chicago, City Council.
Ricardo Meza, Maria Valdez, Anthony E. Chavez, Patricia Mendoza, Mexican American Legal Defense & Educ. Fund, Chicago, IL, for Mary Bonilla, Rafael Boria, Neomi Hernandez, Ignacio Alvarez, Antonio Miranda, Peter Mendoz, Francisco Duprey.
James Michael Scanlon, Rieff & Scanlon, Chicago, IL, for Michael J. Hamblet.
1. The trial of this case lasted for 48 trial days commencing on February 28, 1996 and concluding on August 1, 1996.1 There was a lengthy hiatus in the trial between April 4, 1996 and June 25, 1996 necessitated by a serious injury suffered by the lead trial counsel for the Barnett plaintiffs. The transcript of this trial spanned 8731 pages. The record of this trial also included several hundred exhibits and approximately one thousand pages of deposition designations and counter-designations offered by the parties.2
2. The monumental length of this bench trial was necessitated by the complex and tightly fought nature of this case. This case raised numerous difficult and knotty legal and factual issues, the complexity of which was compounded by the issuance of several Supreme Court decisions during the course of trial, which defendants argued altered significantly the scope of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act (the "VRA"). The complexity of this trial was further compounded by this Court's obligation to consider the "totality of the circumstances" in connection with plaintiffs' claim that they have been afforded "less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice." See 42 U.S.C. § 1973. This Court endeavored, to the extent that time permitted, to give the parties extensive leeway in their examinations of witnesses and the admission of evidence in an effort to permit a thorough analysis of the totality of the circumstances.3
3. Together the plaintiffs presented 20 witnesses. Plaintiffs' witnesses included six expert witnesses: 1) Prof. Paul Kleppner who testified on behalf of the Bonilla plaintiffs concerning the historical background of the redistricting process; 2) Dr. James Lewis who testified on behalf of the Barnett plaintiffs concerning racial cleavages in City Council voting and the access of minority candidates to campaign funds; 3) Dr. D. Garth Taylor who testified on behalf of the Barnett plaintiffs concerning the diverse communities of interest in the white and African-American communities; 4) Dr. Leobardo Estrada who testified on behalf of the Bonilla plaintiffs concerning the illustrative alternative ward maps prepared in connection with the Bonilla case, the socio-economic characteristics of Chicago's Latino population, the "fragmentation" of the Latino community by Chicago's ward map, and the Latino citizenship rates in Chicago; 5) Professor Alan Lichtman who testified on behalf of the Bonilla plaintiffs concerning racial bloc voting and the cohesiveness of Latino voters, Professor Lichtman also investigated Latino voter turnout and voter registration patterns; 6) Professor Richard Engstrom who testified on behalf of the Barnett plaintiffs concerning racial bloc voting, voter cohesiveness and polarization as they affect African-American voters, the fracturing and packing of African-American communities in the present ward map, and the Barnett illustrative alternative ward maps. In addition to this extensive expert testimony, plaintiffs also presented testimony from many, with some key exceptions, of the persons who played pivotal roles in the remap process.4 The plaintiffs also submitted by designation the deposition testimony of ten witnesses including Aldermen Virginia Rugai, John Buchanan, Burton Natarus, Lorraine Dixon, Michael Wojick, former aldermen Medrano, Fary, Mazzola and Bialczak and Joseph Pindell, an employee of EDS who was responsible for maintaining the computers used by the City in connection with the ward remap process.5
4. The defendants presented the testimony of sixteen witnesses. The defendants called two expert witnesses: 1) Professor Norfleet Rives who testified concerning demographic patterns in the City of Chicago, "race-neutral" benchmark maps, fracturing under the current ward map and plaintiffs' illustrative alternative maps, and an estimate of citizenship rates and their effect on minority voting strength; and 2) Professor Ronald E. Weber who testified concerning minority participation in the political process, minority voting cohesion, and whether bloc voting by majority voters usually results in the inability of minority voters to elect their candidates of choice. The defendants called Aldermen Burke, Murphy, Rugai, Mary Ann Smith, and Banks; former Finance Committee staff-members Judge Ruble-Murphy and Kathy Tuite; David Ortiz, a former aldermanic candidate in the 10th Ward; George Atkins, the campaign manager for Alderwoman Helen Schiller of the 46th Ward; Robert Bartell, the President of the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization; Joseph Pindell, a computer technician then employed by EDS; Dr. Solomon Chu, the President of the Chinatown Chamber of Commerce; Michael Norkewicz, the chief demographer of the Latino Institute a not-for-profit organization which was involved in developing proposed ward maps for Latino majority wards during the redistricting process. The defendants also called Whitman Soule, a computer technician who assisted the African-American aldermen during the remap process and who assisted in preparing the Barnett illustrative alternative ward maps, and whose testimony was of little or no relevance, as an adverse witness.
5. The defendants also submitted deposition designations for 23 Barnett plaintiffs or former plaintiffs including the present and former aldermanic plaintiffs and the lay plaintiffs. The defendants also submitted deposition designations for the 4 lay Bonilla plaintiffs and for Juan Andrade, the President of the Midwest/Northeast Voter Registration and Education Project.
6. This litigation was initially brought by three separate classes of plaintiffs: the Barnett class consisting of several African-American residents and voters in the City of Chicago (92 C 1683); the Smith class consisting of 16 African-American alderman for the City of Chicago (92 C 2104); and the Bonilla class consisting of several Latino residents and voters in the City of Chicago (92 C 2666) (the "Bonilla" plaintiffs). The Barnett and Smith classes have been consolidated and will be referred to collectively as the Barnett class. The Barnett and Bonilla classes have been consolidated for the purposes of discovery, trial, and the possible consideration of a remedial ward map.
7. Both the Barnett and Bonilla plaintiffs are challenging the boundaries of Chicago's aldermanic districts which were approved by a majority of the voters in the City of Chicago by referendum on March 17, 1992. Both sets of plaintiffs have challenged Chicago's present ward boundaries under § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 et seq., (the "VRA") and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. In capsule summary, both classes of plaintiffs allege that the present ward boundaries were purposefully drawn to, and/or result in, the dilution of African-American and Latino voting strength.
8. Both the Barnett and Bonilla classes have been certified to include those African-Americans and Latinos "who have been, will be, and/or continue to experience a dilution of their right to vote due to the discriminatory actions, policies, and practices of the defendants as alleged in the plaintiffs' third amended complaint."
9. The defendants in both consolidated cases are the City of Chicago and the Board of Election Commissioners of Chicago. Additionally, 30 current or former alderman for the City of Chicago have intervened as defendants in both consolidated cases. The majority of the intervening alderman were among the co-sponsors of the current ward map when it went before the voters of the City of Chicago at referendum. The defendants and intervening defendants will hereinafter be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. City of Chicago
...consolidated for a 48-day bench trial, and the district court entered judgment for the defendants on all claims. See Barnett v. City of Chi., 969 F.Supp. 1359 (N.D.Ill.1997). On appeal, this court affirmed the judgment in Bonilla but, for reasons not relevant here, vacated the judgments in ......
-
Radogno v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections, 1:11–cv–04884.
...defendants' observation that “neither whites nor any other race run as a group,” DE 71 at 21, plaintiffs cite Barnett v. City of Chicago, 969 F.Supp. 1359, 1424 (N.D.Ill.1997)aff'd in part, vacated in part,141 F.3d 699 (7th Cir.1998), for the proposition that “failure to look at combined el......
-
Polish American Congress v. City of Chicago
...standing. 11. Under the ward redistricting plan adopted in 1991, each ward had approximately 55,675 residents (see Barnett v. Chicago, 969 F.Supp. 1359, 1371 (N.D.Ill.1997)). If 184,614 Polish-Americans had been concentrated in "northwest Chicago" (an undefined concept— see n. 7) at the tim......
-
Barnett v. City of Chicago
...The trial took 48 days, and it was almost a year before the district judge rendered his decision, upholding the City's ward map. 969 F.Supp. 1359 (N.D.Ill.1997). Both sets of plaintiffs have appealed. The only issue they raise is whether the City's map violates section 2 of the Voting Right......