Solomon v. Liberty County Com'rs, 97-2540
| Decision Date | 03 February 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-2540,97-2540 |
| Citation | 166 F.3d 1135 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 466 Gregory SOLOMON, Patricia Beckwith, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LIBERTY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Liberty County School Board, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
David M. Lipman, Miami, FL, Robert B. McDuff, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
David LaCroix, Punta Gorda, FL, J.C. O'Steen, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, BLACK, Circuit Judge, and KRAVITCH, Senior Circuit Judge.
Appellants Gregory Solomon and two other black registered voters of Liberty County, Florida, appeal the district court's judgment that the county's at-large system of electing its commissioners and school board members does not run afoul of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (1994). Finding clear error, in part because of the court's reliance on the electoral success of a black candidate during the pendency of this litigation, we reverse and remand for the implementation of a remedy.
This lawsuit began in 1985 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Appellants sued Liberty County's Commission, School Board, and commissioners and members in their official capacities (collectively appellees), alleging that at-large elections unlawfully diluted minority voting strength, in violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973. 1 In March 1986, the district court conducted a five-day bench trial and, a year later, entered final judgment in favor of appellees. See Solomon v. Liberty County, Fla., Nos. 85-7009-MMP, 85-7010-MMP (unpublished).
On appeal, a panel of this court vacated and remanded for further findings of fact. Solomon v. Liberty County, Fla., 865 F.2d 1566 (11th Cir.1988) (Solomon I ), vacated, 873 F.2d 248 (11th Cir.1989). In April 1990, the court reheard the case en banc. Solomon v. Liberty County, Fla., 899 F.2d 1012 (11th Cir.1990) (en banc ) (Solomon II ), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1023, 111 S.Ct. 670, 112 L.Ed.2d 663 (1991). Unanimously vacating and remanding for further proceedings, the court held that contrary to the district court's judgment, appellants satisfied the three factors set forth in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986), "as a matter of law[.]" Solomon II, 899 F.2d at 1013 (per curiam ).
The court, however, divided five-five concerning the significance of that holding. See Solomon II, 899 F.2d at 1013-21 (Kravitch, J., specially concurring), 1021-37 (Tjoflat, C.J., specially concurring). According to five judges, appellants established section 2 violations and deserved a remedy. See Solomon II, 899 F.2d at 1021 (Kravitch, J., specially concurring). The other five judges, however, reaffirmed the prior panel's opinion that further findings of fact were warranted. See Solomon II, 899 F.2d at 1021, 1037 (Tjoflat, C.J., specially concurring). Unable to create a majority opinion, the en banc court simply instructed the district court "to proceed in accordance with Gingles, giving due consideration to the views expressed in Chief Judge Tjoflat's and Judge Kravitch's specially concurring opinions." Solomon II, 899 F.2d at 1013 (per curiam ).
On remand, the district court granted appellees' motion to supplement the record and conducted a half-day trial. Based on the evidence it admitted in the first and second trials and two judicially noticed facts, the district court again found that Liberty County's at-large elections do not violate section 2 and entered final judgment in favor of appellees. See Solomon v. Liberty County, Fla., 957 F.Supp. 1522 (N.D.Fla.1997) (Solomon III ).
Liberty County is located in northwest Florida. It is especially rural; the Apalachicola National Forest encompasses much of its 836 square miles. As Florida's least densely-populated county, it averages seven persons per square mile. Liberty County's population totals only 5,569. 2 Of Liberty County's 5,569 residents, 982--or 17.63 percent--are black. 3 The county's total voting age population (that is, persons over the age of 18) is 3,320, of whom 831--or 25.03 percent--are black.
Residents vote at one of eight precincts. 4 Candidate seat-wise, however, five equally populous residential districts divide Liberty County. "To a great extent, the county is ... racially segregated." Solomon III, 957 F.Supp. at 1558. Approximately 90 percent of its black population lives in "residential district 1," which corresponds somewhat to voting precincts 1 and 2. 5 Of residential district 1's 640 registered voters in 1991, blacks comprise 295--or 46.09 percent. Although "significant socio-economic disparities" exist between Liberty County's white and black residents, substantially all of its voters are Democrats. Solomon III, 957 F.Supp. at 1559.
Liberty County's Commission and School Board each consists of five members who serve staggered four-year terms. Candidates run for numbered seats that correspond to their residential district. Voters elect candidates at-large, that is, the entire county electorate votes for one candidate from each residential district. To become their party's nominee, candidates must receive a majority (that is, greater than 50 percent) of the county-wide vote. If no candidate receives a majority in the first primary election, the county conducts a second (or run-off) primary election. To win the general election, candidates must obtain a plurality (that is, more than their opponents) of the county-wide vote. Because most candidates in Liberty County are Democrats, voters usually decide races during the primary elections.
Prior to the commencement of this case, four black candidates unsuccessfully ran for county-wide office. Solomon III, 957 F.Supp. at 1557. Six months after 1990's en banc mandate, however, Jennings won the residential district 1 seat on the county commission, defeating a white opponent in the primary and a white Republican incumbent in the general election. In 1992, voters reelected Jennings in the run-off primary over three white opponents, two of whom failed to make it past the first primary. In 1996, two black candidates and one white candidate challenged Jennings, but he again prevailed in the run-off primary election. According to the record, Jennings is the only black candidate that Liberty County voters have elected to public office.
In its memorandum opinion, the district court rendered findings of fact that favored both appellants and appellees before it ultimately found no vote dilution. As to findings of fact that favored appellants, the district court first recognized the unanimous en banc holding that appellants had proved the three Gingles factors, that is, Liberty County's (1) black voters are "sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district[,]" namely residential district 1; (2) black voters are "politically cohesive"; and (3) the "white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it" usually to defeat black voters' "preferred candidate." Gingles, 478 U.S. at 50-51, 106 S.Ct. 2752; Solomon III, 957 F.Supp. at 1555. Additionally, the court found that "a high degree of racially polarized voting" exists. Solomon III, 957 F.Supp. at 1560. Fifth, it stated that "the continued use of the majority vote requirement can work to the detriment of black candidates[,]" as can "the size of Liberty County[.]" 957 F.Supp. at 1560-61. Finally, the court pointed out that "[b]lacks have not achieved proportional representation on the Liberty County School Board." 957 F.Supp. at 1570.
As to findings of fact that favored appellees, the district court first found "no evidence" that the historical and "remaining vestiges of official discrimination in Liberty County" hinder "the ability of blacks to participate in the political process[.]" Solomon III, 957 F.Supp. at 1559. Next, it held that because of Jennings's 1990 electoral success, "blacks have not been excluded from Liberty County's informal slating process" that consists of "large white families" with which candidates "must align themselves" "[i]n order ... to be successful[.]" 957 F.Supp. at 1561-63 & nn. 96-97. Additionally, according to the court, black candidates' "lack of knowledge of the dynamics of running effective campaigns[,]" as opposed to "the present socio-economic effects of past discrimination[,]" "significant[ly] imped[e] ... black political participation in Liberty County." 957 F.Supp. at 1564-65. Fourth, the court found "no record evidence of any recent overt or subtle racial appeals in campaigns in Liberty County." 957 F.Supp. at 1565. Further, it stated that "the more recent history of elections in Liberty County shows consistent electoral success by the black candidate of choice for public office," Jennings. 957 F.Supp. at 1566. Sixth, the court found that "with few exceptions, the Liberty County School Board and County Commission have been responsive to the needs of the black community." 957 F.Supp. at 1567. Moreover, "as a matter of law[,]" the court concluded, appellants "failed to establish that the policy underlying the use of at-large elections in Liberty County is tenuous." 957 F.Supp. at 1568. Eighth, it stated that "racial animus" does not drive Liberty County's electoral process. 957 F.Supp. at 1570. Finally, citing Jennings's election and re-elections, the court found that blacks "clearly" enjoy "proportional representation on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Tribal Gov't
-
Flores v. Town of Islip
...may also be considered in evaluating a claim under section 2." (citing S. Rep. at 29)), rev'd sub nom. , Solomon v. Liberty Cty. Comm'rs , 166 F.3d 1135 (11th Cir. 1999), reh'g en banc granted, opinion vacated , 206 F.3d 1054 (11th Cir. 2000), and on reh'g aff'd sub nom. , Solomon v. Libert......
-
Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. v. Raffensperger
...whether the political process is equally open to minority voters.'” (quoting Gingles, 478 U.S. at 79)); Solomon v. Liberty Cnty. Com'rs, 166 F.3d 1135, 1148 (11th Cir. 1999), vacated 206 F.3d 1054 (acknowledging that the Third, Fifth, and Tenth Circuits have found it to be “unusual” or “rar......
- Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. United States
-
Employment Discrimination - Peter Reed Corbin and John E. Duvall
...accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation." 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12182(a). 164. 166 F.3d at 1135. 165. Id. at 1127. Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint a variety of barriers to accessibility within the gaming facility and a restaura......