Ketchum v. City Council of City of Chicago, Ill., 82 C 4085

• Decision Date: 30 December 1985
• Docket Number: No. 82 C 4085,82 C 4431 and 82 C 4820.,82 C 4085
• Parties: Mars KETCHUM, et al., Plaintiffs, and United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. CITY COUNCIL OF the CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

630 F. Supp. 551

Mars KETCHUM, et al., Plaintiffs, and United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. CITY COUNCIL OF the CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, Defendants.

Nos. 82 C 4085, 82 C 4431 and 82 C 4820.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D.

December 27, 1985.

On Motion for Special Elections December 30, 1985.

Jeffrey D. Colman, Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block and Richard H. Newhouse, Jr., Chicago, IL, for Ketchum.

Judson H. Miner, Bridget A. Arimond and Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Galland, Chicago, IL, for PACI.

Raymond G. Romero and The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Chicago, IL, for Velasco.

Margaret C. Gordon, Asst. U.S. Attorney, Chicago, IL, William Bradford Reynolds, Paul F. Hancock, Robert S. Berman, Mark A. Posner, Michael J. Gennaco, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Voting Rights Section, Washington, D.C., for United States.

James D. Montgomery, Corp. Counsel, Joel D. Stein, Chief Asst. Corp. Counsel, Deborah L. Thorne, Peggy A. Davis, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Chicago, IL, for City Council.

Mchael Levinson on behalf of defendant Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

William J. Harte, Jeffrey B. Whitt, Chicago, IL, for certain defendant-intervenors.

ORDER

NORGLE, District Judge.

This case is before the court on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.¹ The Seventh Circuit remanded the case to this court to fashion an appropriate remedy for established violations of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended in 1982. 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (1982). The earlier court-ordered map failed to provide "an adequate remedy for the Voting Rights Act violation because it did not eliminate, in accordance with well-accepted principles of redistricting, the illegal dilution of minority voting strength accomplished by the City Council Map." Ketchum v. Byrne, 740 F.2d 1398, 1412 (7th Cir.1984). The sole purpose of this remand is to remedy the illegal dilution of minority voting strength within the guidelines set by the court of appeals and section 2. Before turning to the particulars of the court of appeals' decision a short procedural background is necessary.²

This is a consolidated action which contested the 1981 Chicago Ward redistricting plan (City Council map), approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Chicago on November 30, 1981. The three plaintiffs are groups of Black (Ketchum) and Hispanic (Velasco) voters and a black political organization (Political Action Conference of Illinois and four individuals) hereinafter, collectively "PACI". The only remaining defendant from the original action is the City Council of the City of Chicago (City Council). The United States was permitted to intervene as plaintiff in the action.

The plaintiffs challenged the City-Council map on two fronts: section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments. The district court found that only a section 2 violation existed and rejected the intentional discrimination basis of liability. In finding a section 2 violation, the district court concluded the City-Council map violated section 2 in that it decreased the number of Black majority Wards that existed in 1980 under the 1970 map.³ The court ordered the restoration of the 19 Black majority wards and set a simple majority of voting age population as the indication of a majority ward. Additionally, the court-ordered map created four Hispanic majority wards.

Plaintiffs appealed from the district court's 1982 approved plan. Plaintiffs asked the appellate court to find the City Council had intentionally discriminated against plaintiffs in violation of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments and to find the City Council map diluted minority voting strength through four techniques— packing, fracturing, retrogression, and boundary manipulation. Plaintiffs sought reversal of the district court's finding that the City Council map only violated § 2 because of city-wide retrogression from 19 Black majority wards in 1980 under the 1970 map to 17 Black majority wards in the City Council map. The appellate court declined to find that the City Council intentionally discriminated against minorities because "there appeared to be no difference in the practical result or in the available remedy regardless of how the resulting discrimination was characterized." Ketchum, 740 F.2d at 1409-10 nn. 10 & 11.⁴ The court did note the "apparently close analogy" between the facts in this case and Rybicki I, which had found intentional discrimination in the legislative redistricting of Illinois legislative districts. Most significantly, the court noted the various methods used by the City Council to discriminate against minorities in redistricting particular wards.⁵

The court then turned to the remedial aspects of the Section 2 violation. In discussing the appropriate remedy, the Seventh Circuit addressed the underlying assumptions of the district court in approving the court-ordered map, and provided guidance to this court in redistricting the ward remap. Specifically, the court concluded:

1) The district court's previous assumption that any majority greater than 50% of the voting age population was sufficient to define a majority was an inadequate definition of an "effective majority." Id. at 1413-17.

2) The usage of voting age population statistics, if reliable, is an appropriate device to measure voting strength. Id. at 1412-13.

3) A supermajority corrective of 65% should only be utilized if the court concludes, after consideration of turnout and registration statistics of Black and Hispanic voters, that there is a "practical need" for such a corrective in order to give minorities a reasonable and fair opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Id. at 1413-17.

4) Relevant to the above determination, the district court should consider recent trends in the electoral patterns of Black and Hispanic communities to determine the need for a corrective.

5) Whatever corrective is ultimately adopted, if any, the district court should justify its reliance on the statistics, and the numbers on which they are based, keeping in mind the creation of an "effective majority."

6) A restoration to majority percentage figures prior to the City Council map is unnecessary, i.e., retrogression within wards need not be addressed. Id. at 1414.

7) In the 15th and 37th wards, which demonstrated the greatest retrogression through boundary manipulation, a 65% corrective would be considered a "fair antidote" to restore pre-redistricting majorities. Id. at 1417.

8) The city-wide retrogression must be redressed. The number of Black majority wards should be restored to the number which existed in 1980 under the 1970 map (19). Id.

9) The court should consider whether four Hispanic wards, with sufficient majorities, can be created to provide Hispanics a reasonable opportunity to elect candidates of their own choice. Id. at 1418.

10) Minority groups have neither a statutory nor a constitutional right to proportional representation. Id.

11) In remapping the City wards, this court should examine the 15th, 25th, 22nd, 26th, 30th, 31st, 32nd, 33rd, 35th, 37th and possibly consider the 1st, 7th, and 12th wards.

Within these specific guidelines, the Seventh Circuit noted that a district court in ordering the remap should fashion a remedy "commensurate with the right that has been violated ... The court should exercise its traditional equitable powers to fashion the relief so that it completely remedies the prior dilution of minority voting strength and fully provides equal opportunity for minority citizens to participate and to elect candidates of their choice." Id. at 1412 (quoting Senate Report at 31) (emphasis added). In light of this direction, we turn to the proceedings in this court.

Proceedings on Remand

On July 2, 1985 this court ordered all parties to "obtain, collect, consider, analyze, and evaluate data, statistical and otherwise," to comply with the Seventh Circuit's mandate that this court consider "recent historical trends and patterns," if any, in determining an effective majority and the need for a corrective. The court was informed through the affidavit of redistricting expert, Kimball Brace, who testified at the original trial, that updating the data base, which contained population and voting age population figures and breakdowns according to race, would take at least 90 days. The update required consideration of elections following the court-approved map in December, 1982.⁶ The court, however, set an expedited schedule for the preparation and exchange of proposed maps and supporting data, and set the matter for trial on November 4, 1985. In the interim, several parties moved for and were granted permissive intervention pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b). Citizens from the 11th,⁷ 15th,⁸ 26th,⁹ and 31st Wards¹⁰ were permitted to intervene. Furthermore, after a hearing on a motion the Corporation Counsel of the City Council was designated as the legal representative for the City Council in this matter.¹¹ As a result of that ruling 25 individual aldermen of the City Council, (certain intervenors)¹² represented by Mr. William Harte, sought and were granted intervention as defendants. Representing different views in this case, then, were members of the Black (the Ketchum and PACI plaintiffs) and Hispanic (Valasco plaintiffs) communities, as plaintiffs, the City Council as defendants, and certain intervenors (25 aldermen), individual intervenors, (Daley and Huels, Brady & Savickas, Mirta Roman, et al., and Santiago & Nedza), and the Department of Justice, as intervenors.

At the pretrial conference on October 28, 1985 the parties informed the court that they were engaging in settlement negotiations and were close to settlement.¹³ On November 4, 1985, the date originally set for a full trial, the court heard evidence from the proponents of the proposed settlement. The settlement primarily...