Sanchez v. State of Colo., Civ. A. No. 93-S-0963.

• Decision Date: 31 August 1994
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 93-S-0963.
• Citation: 861 F. Supp. 1516
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
• Parties: Jennie SANCHEZ, Adeline Sanchez, and Debra Casanova, Plaintiffs, v. The STATE OF COLORADO and Natalie Meyer, in her official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Colorado, Defendants.

861 F. Supp. 1516

Jennie SANCHEZ, Adeline Sanchez, and Debra Casanova, Plaintiffs, v. The STATE OF COLORADO and Natalie Meyer, in her official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Colorado, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 93-S-0963.

United States District Court, D. Colorado.

August 31, 1994.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Gale T. Miller, Richard A. Westfall, Anthony F. Medeiros, Davis, Graham & Stubbs, Pamela J. Fair, Shelley Wittevrongel, Law Offices of John McKendree, Denver, CO, for plaintiffs.

Maurice G. Knaizer, Deputy Atty. Gen., Alesia M. McCloud-Chan, Asst. Atty. Gen., General Legal Services Section, Denver, CO, for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SPARR, District Judge.

THIS MATTER came before the court for trial on March 21, 1994 through March 25, 1994. The court heard final argument on June 8, 1994. Having reviewed all of the evidence, the arguments, and the applicable law, and being fully advised in the premises, the court finds and concludes as follows.

The Plaintiffs bring a single claim for relief for violation of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973. Plaintiffs allege that District 60 of the Colorado House of Representatives (H.D. 60), as it is currently configured, violates § 2 by unlawfully diluting the voting strength of Hispanic citizens in South Central Colorado. Plaintiffs ask the court to: (1) declare that H.D. 60 violates § 2; (2) grant a permanent injunction preventing any further elections for representative to the Colorado General Assembly from H.D. 60 as it is presently configured; (3) order the adoption of a redistricted H.D. 60 that contains a majority Hispanic voting age population; and (4) award Plaintiffs their fees and costs.

A. Background

In 1992, pursuant to Colorado's reapportionment process set forth in Article V, § 48 of the Colorado Constitution, the Colorado Reapportionment Commission devised H.D. 60 as presently drawn. H.D. 60 is comprised of Alamosa, Conejos, Costilla, Huerfano, Mineral, Rio Grande, and Saguache counties, plus the portion of Las Animas that is west of Trinidad. All of these counties, except Huerfano and Las Animas, are considered to be in the San Luis Valley (the Valley). Hispanics are estimated to comprise 45.31% of the total population and 42.38% of the voting age population of H.D. 60. The 1992 redistricting increased the total Hispanic voting age population in H.D. 60 by approximately five percent (5%).

In 1991 and 1992, Colorado's Reapportionment Commission conducted meetings and hearings, heard extensive presentations, and compiled substantial reports regarding the redistricting of South Central Colorado and H.D. 60. (Plaintiffs' Exhibits 9-20, 30, 33, 34, 47, 72, 83, 86, 87, 92, 93; Defendants' Exhibits F1, F2, F3, G, H, I, J, K, L, L1-L6). The testimony at the hearings favored preserving the Valley intact and disapproved splitting the Valley in order to increase the percentage of Hispanic voters. (See Plaintiffs' Exhibits 14, 15, 16 and Defendants' Exhibits H, I, J, L4). Testimony at the hearings revealed that Hispanics in the Valley have different political interests than Hispanic voters outside the Valley. There was no suggestion to the Commission that an Hispanic community of interest existed between the Valley, Pueblo, and Trinidad. After extensive consideration, the Commission identified certain specific goals for redistricting the southern central part of the State, among others: (1) preserving the Valley in a single house district; (2) separating the Valley from western slope districts; (3) preserving Pueblo West in a single house district; and (4) preserving Huerfano and Las Animas counties in a house district extending east, not west. (See Plaintiffs' Exhibit 17, p. 1.). The plan ultimately adopted by the Reapportionment Commission was upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court, over a challenge to H.D. 60 by two of these same Plaintiffs. In re Colorado General Assembly, 828 P.2d 185, 193 (Colo.1992). Plaintiffs now allege that the drawing of the present H.D. 60 violates § 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting Hispanic votes in South Central Colorado.

B. Legal Framework

Because it is the domain of the States, and not the federal courts, to conduct apportionment in the first place, federal courts are barred from intervening in state apportionment in the absence of a violation of federal law. Voinovich v. Quilter, ___ U.S. ___, ___-___, 113 S.Ct. 1149, 1156-57, 122 L.Ed.2d 500 (1993). "Reapportionment is primarily the duty and responsibility of the State through its legislature or other body, rather than of a federal court." Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. ___, ___, 113 S.Ct. 1075, 1081, 122 L.Ed.2d 388 (1993), citing Chapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. 1, 27, 95 S.Ct. 751, 766, 42 L.Ed.2d 766 (1975). Because the States do not derive their reapportionment authority from the Voting Rights Act, but rather from independent provisions of state and federal law, the federal courts are bound to respect the States' apportionment choices unless those choices contravene federal requirements. Voinovich, ___ U.S. at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 1157 (citations omitted).

In 1982, § 2 was amended to eliminate the need to prove discriminatory intent in order to prove a violation of § 2. Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 43-44, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 2762-2763, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986). Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, 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 abridgment 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 4(f)(2) 42 USCS § 1973(f)(2), as provided in subsection (b).

(b) A violation of subsection (a) is established if, based on the totality of 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) 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 their proportion in the population.

Hispanics are members of a class of citizens protected by § 1973(a). 42 U.S.C. § 1973f(2).

Section 2 claims are analyzed under a two-part framework. Magnolia Bar Ass'n., Inc. v. Lee, 994 F.2d 1143, 1146 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 555, 126 L.Ed.2d 456 (1993). To prevail on a § 2 claim, the Plaintiffs must first satisfy certain threshold requirements set forth by the Supreme Court in Gingles, 478 U.S. at 30, 106 S.Ct. at 2752. Lee, 994 F.2d at 1146. Minority voters must then offer evidence of the totality of circumstances to demonstrate whether the challenged election practice "has resulted in the denial or abridgment of the right to vote based on color or race." Lee, 994 F.2d at 1146, citing Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380, 393, 111 S.Ct. 2354, 2363, 115 L.Ed.2d 348 (1991).

A claim of vote dilution in a single member district requires proof meeting the same three threshold conditions for a dilution challenge to a multimember district. Johnson v. DeGrandy, ___ U.S. ___, ___-___, 114 S.Ct. 2647, 2654-55, 129 L.Ed.2d 775 (1994), citing Growe, ___ U.S. at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 1084; Lee, 994 F.2d at 1146. To satisfy the Gingles threshold inquiry, the minority group must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single member district; (2) it is politically cohesive; and (3) the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it, in the absence of special circumstances, usually to defeat the minority group's preferred candidate. DeGrandy, ___ U.S. at ___-___, 114 S.Ct. at 2654-55 (citations omitted); Lee, 994 F.2d at 1146, citing Gingles, 478 U.S. at 48-51, 106 S.Ct. at 2765-2767. The three threshold factors are "necessary preconditions" for establishing vote dilution. DeGrandy, ___ U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 2657, quoting Gingles, 478 U.S. at 50, 106 S.Ct. at 2766. If these Gingles threshold factors are not present, then the challenged electoral practice cannot be considered as the cause of the minority's inability to elect its preferred candidate. Sanchez v. Bond, 875 F.2d 1488, 1492 (10th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 937, 111 S.Ct. 340, 112 L.Ed.2d 305 (1990), citing Gingles, 478 U.S. at 50, 106 S.Ct. at 2766. Failure to establish any one of the Gingles factors precludes a § 2 violation. Growe, ___ U.S. at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 1084; Lee, 994 F.2d at 1146, citing Gingles, 478 U.S. at 50, 106 S.Ct. at 2766.

Because Congress intended the ultimate conclusions about equality or inequality of political opportunity to rest on "comprehensive, not limited, canvassing of relevant facts," the three Gingles preconditions may not be isolated as sufficient, standing alone, to prove vote dilution. DeGrandy, ___ U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 2657. Once the minority group satisfies the Gingles threshold inquiry, it must then offer evidence of the totality of circumstances demonstrating that the minority group has "less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice." Lee, 994 F.2d at 1146, citing 42 U.S.C. § 1973(b).

The Senate Report accompanying the 1982 amendments to § 2 listed several factors that may be relevant to the totality of circumstances inquiry in a § 2 claim:

1. the extent of any history of

...