Citizens for a Better Gretna v. City of Gretna, La.

• Decision Date: 12 May 1986
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 84-4901.
• Citation: 636 F. Supp. 1113
• Parties: CITIZENS FOR A BETTER GRETNA, et al. v. CITY OF GRETNA, LOUISIANA, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

636 F. Supp. 1113

CITIZENS FOR A BETTER GRETNA, et al. v. CITY OF GRETNA, LOUISIANA, et al.

Civ. A. No. 84-4901.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

May 12, 1986.

Alice M. Jacobs, Suzanne Weiner, Jack W. Jernigan, Ronald L. Wilson, New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs.

Jon A. Gegenheimer, City Atty., City of Gretna, Gretna, La., for defendants.

OPINION

ROBERT F. COLLINS, District Judge.

When Congress passed the Voting Rights Act¹ in 1965 to eliminate voting discrimination and to affirm the fundamental right of each citizen to participate fully in elections, President Lyndon Johnson hailed its enactment as a "triumph for freedom as huge as any ever won on any battlefield."² The weapon Congress utilized to secure that freedom was Section 2 of the Act, which created a right of action for private citizens or the government to challenge discriminatory voting practices or procedures.³ This case evokes a consideration of the extent to which plaintiffs have properly used that weapon (in its amended form) to attack the election procedure of the Board of Aldermen for the City of Gretna, Louisiana. Specifically, the Court is called upon to determine under what circumstances does a governmental election scheme operate to minimize or cancel out the voting strength of racial minorities within the City of Gretna.

This class action is brought pursuant to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Voting Rights Act amendments of 1982, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs, Jerome Black, Noreen V. Boyd, Sylvester Brown, Burnell Darensburg, Jr., Alex Gourgis, Sr., Bernice Gourgis, Warren G. Lombard, Leo Jones, Charles L. Mar, Verta M. Mar and Sammie Walker, are all black citizens of the United States and the State of Louisiana. They are residents of the City of Gretna and are registered to vote there. Citizens for a Better Gretna is an unincorporated association of citizens of the City of Gretna. Its members include the above named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sue individually and as representatives of the class of black registered voters of the City of Gretna, Louisiana.

The City of Gretna is a municipal corporation formed under the laws of the State of Louisiana, particularly the Lawrason Act, LSA-R.S. 33:51 et seq. As such, it is a political subdivision of the State of Louisiana. Defendant, William J. White, is the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer of the City of Gretna, and he is sued both in his individual and official capacities. James Bush, Sr., Salvadore Marchese, Jr., Louis LeBoeuf, Jr., Gerard E. Schexnayder and Hubert F. Uzee are Aldermen of the City of Gretna, and they are sued both in their individual and representative capacities.

Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1973j(f) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 and 1344.

The gravamen of plaintiffs' claim is that the "at-large" election system, together with the majority vote requirement for election to the Board of Aldermen (LSA-R.S. 18:511 A), currently employed by the City, effectively prevents blacks from participating in the political process in a reliable and meaningful fashion in two basic ways. First, it ensures that the white voters will continue to elect all members to the Board of Alderman, while blacks will continue to have neither the opportunity nor ability to be elected; and secondly, by doing so, it operates to minimize or cancel out the black voting strength in the City by denying blacks the opportunity to elect blacks to the Board of Aldermen, even though they comprise a significant portion of the total population of the City — all in a manner that violates rights of the plaintiffs secured by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, amended June 29, 1982, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

This Court concludes, on the basis of factual findings, that the "at-large" system of election to the Board of Aldermen in the City of Gretna violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and that plaintiffs are therefore entitled to appropriate relief, including an order enjoining defendants from conducting elections under the existent "atlarge" system. Because the Court upholds plaintiffs' claim for relief under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, it need not address their other statutory and constitutional claims seeking the same relief.

The Standard of Proof under Section 2

The language of Section 2(b), supplemented by its legislative history, provides the standard of proof for finding a Section 2 violation. The Senate Report delineates specific factors which a court should consider in determining whether the political process of a state or subdivision thereof violates Section 2. In determining whether, "based on the totality of circumstances," a subdivision electoral mechanism does so "result" in racial vote dilution, Congress intended that courts should look to the interaction of the challenged mechanism with those historical, social and political factors generally suggested as probative of dilution in White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755, 93 S.Ct. 2332, 37 L.Ed.2d 314 (1973) and subsequently elaborated by the former Fifth Circuit in Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F.2d 1297 (5th Cir.1973) (en banc), aff'd on other grounds sub nom., East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636, 96 S.Ct. 1083, 47 L.Ed.2d 296 (1976) (per curiam). These factors typically include, per the Senate Report accompanying the compromise version enacted as amended Section 2:

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 minority group;

4. if there is a candidate slating process, whether the members of the minority group have been denied access to that process;

5. the extent to which members of the minority group in the state or political sub-division 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.⁴

"Zimmer Factors"

The Court finds the following circumstances to have contributed to dilution of minority voting strength in Gretna by use of the at-large scheme for election of aldermen and incorporates them as Findings of Fact in this case.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Past Discrimination and Its Lingering Effects

A history of discrimination is important evidence of both discriminatory intent and discriminatory result. Past discrimination can severely impair the present-day ability of minorities to participate on an equal footing in the political process. Past discrimination may cause blacks to register or vote in lower numbers than whites. Indeed, past discrimination may manifest itself in present-day socio-economic disadvantages, which in turn can reduce participating and influence in political affairs. The historical record of discrimination in the State of Louisiana and the Parish of Jefferson is undeniably clear, and the record suggests it has not ended even now.

The history of black citizens' attempts, in Louisiana since Reconstruction, to participate effectively in the political process and the white majority's resistance to those efforts is one characterized by both de jure and de facto discrimination. Indeed, it would take a multi-volumed treatise to properly describe the persistent, and often violent, intimidation visited by white citizens upon black efforts to participate in Louisiana's political process. Plaintiffs' expert, historian Dr. Raphael Cassimere, has traced that history very clearly and cogently to its genesis-slavery.

Disenfranchisement of blacks as an acknowledged state policy pre-dates the Civil War. Even free blacks who were property owners, were denied the right to vote. Most blacks, consequently, even while ostensibly "free," remained enslaved, bereft of one of the most basic of human rights — the right to vote.

With the advent of post-Civil War Reconstruction and the emancipation of slaves, federal intervention⁵ led to some desegregation of schools, integration of public facilities and perhaps most importantly, registration and political participation for blacks within the state. Black suffrage flourished from 1867 to 1898. Black persons were elected to state office, including the position of lieutenant governor. Three black persons were elected to Congress, although only one of them was ever seated.⁶ The white population reacted to the enfranchisement and social elevation of blacks by forming white leagues to challenge the legitimate state government which had previously been elected by a heavily black electorate. Inevitably, racial tensions sparked violence throughout the State. In 1877, when the federal government ceased to monitor state government, the White League, previously held in check, assumed legislative control of the state.

Consequently, the period of enfranchisement for blacks which lasted approximately 30 years gradually came to an end. By 1898, thanks in no small part to the drafting of a new constitution, blacks were completely disenfranchised in the State of Louisiana. The Constitution of 1898 created a registration provision which included both...