Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski County Special School Dist., No. 1, s. 93-3469E
| Decision Date | 05 June 1995 |
| Docket Number | 93-3594EA,Nos. 93-3469E,s. 93-3469E |
| Citation | 56 F.3d 904 |
| Parties | 100 Ed. Law Rep. 920 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff/Appellee, Anne Mitchell; Bob Moore; Pat Gee; Pat Rayburn; Mary J. Gage; North Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association; Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers; Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association; Alexa Armstrong; Karlos Armstrong; Ed Bullington; Khayyam Davis; Janice Dent; John Harrison; Alvin Hudson; Tatia Hudson; and Milton Jackson, Appellants, Lorene Joshua; Leslie Joshua; Stacy Joshua; and Wayne Joshua, Intervenors/Appellants, Katherine Knight; Sara Matthews; Becky McKinney; Derrick Miles; Janice Miles; John M. Miles; NAACP; Joyce Person; Brian Taylor; Hilton Taylor; Parsha Taylor; Robert Willingham; and Tonya Willingham, Intervenors, v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, # 1; North Little Rock School District; Leon Barnes; Sheryl Dunn; Mac Faulkner; Richard A. Giddings; Marianne Gosser; Don Hindman; Shirley Lowery; Bob Lyon; George A. McCrary; Bob Moore; Steve Morley; Buddy Raines; David Sain; Dale Ward; John Ward; Judy Wear; and Grainger Williams, Defendants, Philip E. Kaplan; Janet Pulliam; and John Bilheimer, Movants, Office of Desegregation Monitor, Claimant, Parent's Plan; Horace A. Walker; P.A. Hollingsworth; and Kenneth G. Torrence, Movants, Dale Charles; Robert L. Brown, Sr.; Gwen Hevey Jackson; Diane Davis; and Raymond Frazier, Plaintiffs/Appellants, Pulaski County Board of Education, Defendant/Appellee, O.G. Jacovelli, Individually and as President of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District; Patricia Gee, Individually and in her Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, a Public Body; Dr. George Cannon, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, a Public Body; John Moore, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, a Public Body; Dorsey Jackson, Individually and in |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
John Walker and Mark Burnette, Little Rock, AR, argued (David C. Schoen, on the brief), for all the appellants.
Christopher Heller, Little Rock, AR, argued (John Clayburn Fendley, Jr., on the brief), for appellee.
Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.
Two appeals 1 involving the Little Rock School District (LRSD) are consolidated for our review. In the first case, African-American voters 2 appeal the District Court's 3 order dismissing their claim under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Sec. 2, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973, against LRSD. In the second case, the Joshua Intervenors appeal the District Court's August 10, 1994, order granting LRSD's motion to close Ish Incentive School. We affirm in both cases.
We review first Charles's claim that the LRSD's election-zone plan adopted by the Pulaski County Board of Education (PCBE) and approved by the District Court violates the Voting Rights Act. He alleges that the approved plan denies African-American voters within the LRSD equal opportunity to participate in the electoral process and to elect representatives of their choice. More specifically, he insists that the plan dilutes the vote of African-American residents of the LRSD because those residents are numerous and compact enough to justify the creation of three single-member zones in which they would be in the majority, 4 instead of the two zones provided for in the adopted plan. 5
In 1986, a plan was adopted containing seven single-member zones for election of members of the LRSD school board. Two of the zones were majority-minority zones. 6 In July of 1992, Charles filed this complaint alleging that the 1986 plan should be revised on the basis of the 1990 census. Four rezoning plans were prepared and presented at a public meeting. The Pulaski County Board of Education (PCBE), the responsible body under Arkansas law, selected alternative four. 7 Under alternative four, Zone Two is a majority-minority zone, and Zone One is a supermajority zone (65% or more minority population).
On February 16, 1993, PCBE submitted the plan to the District Court for approval. Charles filed objections alleging that the plan violated Sec. 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Following a trial, the District Court approved the plan adopted by the PCBE and dismissed Charles's complaint. The Charles plaintiffs bring this appeal.
On several occasions we have reviewed challenges brought under the Voting Rights Act to Arkansas's electoral practices. On each of these occasions we have set forth the requirements for establishing a violation of Sec. 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and proceeded mindful of the fact that "equal political opportunity [is] the focus of the enquiry." Johnson v. De Grandy, --- U.S. ----, ----, 114 S.Ct. 2647, 2658, 129 L.Ed.2d 775 (1994). We do so once again in this case.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended in 1982, provides:
(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b(f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if, based on the totality of the circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patino v. City of Pasadena
...Bossier Par. Sch. Bd. , 520 U.S. 471, 480–81, 117 S.Ct. 1491, 137 L.Ed.2d 730 (1997) ; see also Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski Cty. Special Sch. Dist. No. 1 , 56 F.3d 904, 910 (8th Cir. 1995) (district court erred in a § 2 case by comparing a challenged redistricting plan to the prior pl......
-
Cano v. Davis
...on assumptions about the force of the Gingles factors in pointing to dilution."); see Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski Cty. Special Sch. Dist., 56 F.3d 904, 911-12 (8th Cir.1995) (assuming satisfaction of the Gingles factors, but affirming a finding of no minority vote dilution based on th......
-
Bliek v. Palmer
...not be given effect beyond what is necessary to accomplish justice between the parties.'" Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., No. 1, 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir.1995) (quoting Maitland v. University of Minnesota, 43 F.3d 357, 364 (8th Cir.1994)). Under the Food Stamp ......
-
Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski Cty. Spec. Sch.
...v. PCSSD, 971 F.2d 160 (8th Cir.1992); (2) upheld the new zoning plan for electing school board members for LRSD and PCSSD, LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d 904 (8th Cir.1995); and (3) clarified language in the 1990 Settlement Agreement regarding the State's funding obligations to LRSD, PCSSD, and NL......