City of Port Arthur, Tex. v. United States, Civ. A. No. 80-0648.

• Decision Date: 12 June 1981
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 80-0648.
• Citation: 517 F. Supp. 987
• Parties: CITY OF PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

517 F. Supp. 987

CITY OF PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 80-0648.

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

June 12, 1981.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Robert Q. Keith, Mehaffy, Weber, Keith & Gonsoulin, Beaumont, Tex., for plaintiff, with whom were George Wikoff, City Atty., Port Arthur, Tex., and James D. Welch and Greer S. Goldman, Wald, Harkrader & Ross, Washington, D.C.

J. Gerald Hebert and Robert S. Berman, Attys., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant United States of America, with whom were Drew S. Days, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Gerald W. Jones and Paul F. Hancock, Attys., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C.

Elizabeth K. Julian and Michael M. Daniel, East Texas Legal Services, Dallas, Tex., for intervenor-defendants Abraham Douglas, et al., with whom was Norman J. Chachkin, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, D.C.

Before J. SKELLY WRIGHT, Circuit Judge, and JOHN LEWIS SMITH, Jr., and CHARLES R. RICHEY, District Judges.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHARLES R. RICHEY, District Judge.

This is an action for declaratory relief brought under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. ? 1973c (Supp. 1974-1980).¹ Unless a state or political subdivision receives the approval of the Attorney General of the United States for a change in its voting standards, practices or procedures, section 5 requires that the entity must demonstrate to a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that the change it seeks to enforce has neither the purpose nor effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. Plaintiff City of Port Arthur, Texas, has filed this suit in order to obtain a declaration upholding the validity of several voting changes occasioned by the expansion of the boundaries of the City, by the City's adoption of two new electoral plans for the enlarged community, and by the establishment of elected advisory councils for two of the added areas.

With the consent of the parties,² evidence consisting of numerous depositions, exhibits, and the in-court testimony of several witnesses was initially presented to a single judge. Complete copies of the record were then distributed to the two other judges. Ultimately, the full three-judge court heard oral argument on all aspects of the case.

Upon consideration of the entire record herein, we conclude that plaintiff's request for a declaratory judgment must be denied. Although we are convinced that the territorial expansion was accomplished without a discriminatory purpose, the subsequently adopted election plans were fatally infected by such an intent. Moreover, the implementation of any of the voting schemes presented would most probably have the effect of abridging the electoral rights of Port Arthur's minority communities. With respect to the advisory councils, we find the absence of a discriminatory purpose and the presence of a discriminatory effect. The opinion which follows sets forth our findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

I. FACTUAL FINDINGS

A. General Background

Plaintiff City of Port Arthur ("Port Arthur" or "the City") is a municipality located on the southeastern boundary of the State of Texas. It lies approximately 90 miles east of Houston in the southern portion of Jefferson County on the salt-grass marshland adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico. Sabine Lake and the Sabine-Neches waterway border the City on the south while the municipalities of Nederland, Groves, and Port Neches pose a barrier to the north and east. West of Port Arthur is a wildlife management area and several large petroleum company complexes. Due to the location of the City and the resources at hand, the population is primarily engaged in oil refining, petro-chemical manufacturing, sea-faring, and related occupations.³

Within the general area occupied by Port Arthur are four communities which are of central concern in this litigation. The Town of Lakeview ("Lakeview"), the City of Griffing Park ("Griffing Park"), and the City of Pear Ridge ("Pear Ridge") are all incorporated entities covering less than one square mile each. Lakeview overlooks Lake Sabine and is surrounded on all sides by Port Arthur. Situated one mile to the north is Griffing Park which edges Groves on the east and Pear Ridge on the northwest but is otherwise enveloped by the plaintiff City. Aside from its shared border with Griffing Park, Pear Ridge is totally enclosed by Port Arthur. Finally, there is a fourth unincorporated area known as Sabine Pass which is situated eight miles to the south of the City.⁴

According to the figures published by the United States Bureau of Census, the total population of the City of Port Arthur has been decreasing from 66,676 in 1960 through 57,371 in 1970 to 54,485 in 1980.⁵ Simultaneously, the percentage of the municipal population comprised by blacks has increased significantly; the black proportion of the population was 30.79% in 1960, 40.01% in 1970, and 45.21% in 1980. In addition, several other minorities have always contributed a small fraction of the population. Between 6 and 7% of all Port Arthurians, for example are of Spanish origin. Although current statistics as to the number of individuals of voting age in each of these groups are unavailable, the 1970 Census revealed that the total voting-age population ("VAP") was 37,636 of whom 13,033 or 34.62% were black.

By contrast, the four communities mentioned above have far fewer and predominantly white residents.⁶ The total population of Pear Ridge, Lakeview and Sabine Pass, for example, was 8,407 in 1970 and only 6,509 in 1980.⁷ In those same areas, blacks numbered 103 or 1.23% and Mexican-Americans, 720 or 8.56% in 1970; by 1980, there were 111 or 1.71% black and 723 or 11.11% Hispanic citizens. Individuals of voting age totalled only 5,575 of whom 63 or 1.13% were black in 1970.

B. Historical Background of Port Arthur

1. Political history to 1963

The City of Port Arthur was founded in 1898, and it has operated under its own Charter since March 8, 1932, in accordance with the so-called "home-rule amendment" of the Texas Constitution.⁸ City officials were elected by at-large vote until 1954.⁹ Then, between 1954 and 1963, Port Arthur adopted the commission-manager form of government and the single-member district or ward system.¹⁰ Each of the seven commissioners was required to be a resident of the district which he or she represented, and each was elected by only the qualified voters in the district. The commissioners served two year terms with four of the commissioners elected at one time and the remaining three elected the following year. It was necessary that candidates receive a majority of the vote in order to get elected. Following each election, one of the seven commissioners was selected by the commission to serve as mayor.

Throughout the period when this single-member district plan was in effect, the districts were essentially drawn on a north-south axis parallel to the named avenues of the City.¹¹ The black population was heavily concentrated in District 1, the area west of Houston Avenue,¹² and the commission regularly included a single black member elected from that district between 1954 and 1963.¹³ Beginning with the construction of the first urban renewal project in 1957, a significant number of blacks began to move eastward across Houston Avenue into the traditional white residential areas which constituted the other election districts.¹⁴ By 1960, it appeared that District 2 was going to become as predominantly black as District 1.¹⁵

In 1963, however, the results of a Charter change referendum compelled the City to alter the form of government.¹⁶ From that time on, Port Arthur has been governed by a seven-member council and a professional manager who operates the City and carries out the policies of the City Council.¹⁷ According to the so-called 6-0-1 plan,¹⁸ six of the council members are each required to live in newly-drawn residency districts including the old District 1, three new districts drawn along an east-west axis, and two additional districts covering the large area to the north.¹⁹ In order to win a seat, however, a candidate has to be elected by a majority of all of the qualified voters in the City. The seventh position, the mayoral place is similarly filled by an at-large contest, but the mayor is not required to reside in any particular district. Although the mayor bears certain ceremonial and "political" responsibilities not shared by the other members of the Council, he casts a vote on each matter under consideration just as his fellow officials do.²⁰ Each year, three council members are elected, and the three others along with the mayor are voted on the following year.

This Charter amendment was overwhelmingly approved by the citizens of Port Arthur who cast 6,829 votes in its favor and lodged only 1,022 votes against it; blacks and whites alike supported the measure.²¹ In an effort to explain the motivation for this change, plaintiff demonstrated that Port Arthur had been plagued by widespread corruption while the single-member district plan was extant.²² Whether or not the ward system actually spawned the illegal activities, the citizens of Port Arthur believed that there was such a connection.²³ No justification was offered, however, for the redrawing of district boundaries along east-west lines. The record bears witness to the fact that this redistricting had the effect of maintaining the concentration of blacks in District 1 while simultaneously fragmenting the growing black population east of Houston Avenue in Districts 2, 3, and 4 by combining it with the larger white population on the east side of the City.²⁴ Consequently, a minority candidate from the...