Thomasville Branch of Nat. Ass'n for Advancement of Colored People v. Thomas County, Georgia

• Decision Date: 29 March 1978
• Docket Number: No. 77-1196,77-1196
• Citation: 571 F.2d 257
• Parties: THOMASVILLE BRANCH OF the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR the ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THOMAS COUNTY, GEORGIA, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 257

571 F.2d 257

THOMASVILLE BRANCH OF the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR the

ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THOMAS COUNTY, GEORGIA, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 77-1196.

United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

March 29, 1978.

David F. Walbert, Atlanta, Ga., Herbert E. Phipps, Albany, Ga., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Ronald A. Cohen, A. J. Whitehurst, Thomasville, Ga., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.

Before WISDOM, SIMPSON and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is the fourth of four consolidated voting dilution cases we decide today. See Nevett v. Sides (Nevett II), 571 F.2d 209, 213 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1978). Appellants filed this action on August 11, 1975, to challenge the at-large method of electing county commissioners in Thomas County, Georgia. They make two distinct allegations. The first is that the at-large feature of the commission elections works to dilute the votes of blacks in the county (who constitute 35.4% Of the voting population) in violation of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution and of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971(a), 1973, 1981, and 1983 (1970). The second is that the subdistricts within the county, from which the commission candidates are required to run, are of excessively disparate populations in violation of these same constitutional and statutory provisions. See generally Dallas County v. Reese, 421 U.S. 477, 95 S.Ct. 1706, 44 L.Ed.2d 312 (1975), rev'g 505 F.2d 879 (5th Cir. 1974).

After interrogatories, depositions, and the introduction of documentary evidence, both appellants and appellees moved for summary judgment. The court denied both motions on November 12, 1976. The case went to trial on December 1, 1976, at which additional evidence was received on appellants' prayer for injunctive relief. On December 29, the court dismissed the appellants' complaint. ¹ Judgment was entered for the appellees on January 4, 1977.

The district court based its dismissal upon the failure of the appellants to introduce evidence that the 1898 legislation establishing the at-large plan, 1898 Ga.Laws p. 378, was enacted with racially discriminatory motives. Appellants contend that the district court erred as a matter of law in dismissing their complaint on this basis. We agree and therefore reverse the judgment below and remand for further proceedings.

The district court interpreted the Supreme Court decision of Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976), as requiring plaintiffs in dilution cases to show discriminatory intent in the enactment of the districting plan being attacked. We squarely reject this interpretation today in Nevett II; Bolden v. City of Mobile, 571 F.2d 238 (5th Cir. 1978); and Blacks United for Lasting Leadership, Inc. v. City of Shreveport, 571 F.2d 248 (5th Cir. 1978). In Nevett II we discuss fully the import of Washington v. Davis and other Supreme Court decisions requiring a showing of intentional discrimination in fourteenth and fifteenth amendment cases. We think it unnecessary to restate that

discussion here, except to note that the district court must address the issue whether the districting plan is being maintained with the purpose of diluting the black vote in Thomas County. In its inquiry on remand, the court should employ the multifactor analysis expounded in Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F.2d 1297 (5th Cir. 1973) (en banc), aff'd on other grounds sub nom. East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636, 96 S.Ct. 1083, 47 L.Ed.2d 296 (1976), and explicated in our opinions in Nevett II, Bolden, and Shreveport. We therefore REVERSE the judgment of the court and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

APPENDIX

The Opinion of the District Court

OPINION AND ORDER

By this action Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of at-large elections for members of the Board of Commissioners of Thomas County, Georgia. ¹ The present system of electing the Commissioners was established by Act of the Georgia General Assembly in 1898 and has not been modified in any significant respect since that time. Under the applicable law eight Commissioners are elected by a countywide vote and each Commissioner must satisfy a residency requirement. Two members come from the Thomasville District, two from the Boston-Metcalf District, one from the Ochlochnee District, one from the Pavo-Ways-Barwick District, one from the Coolidge-Merrillville-Ellabelle District and one from the Meigs District. The terms of office are staggered so that certain Commissioners stand for election in alternate elections. Ga.L.1898, p. 378, Ga.L.1911, p. 501, Ga.L.1917, p. 394.

This is the second time this Court has dealt with an attack on the system of election of Commissioners in Thomas County. In 1966 a group of white citizens contended that the system resulted in invidious discrimination because of their residence, diluting the voting strength of citizens in the most populous district. This Court determined that this was not an adequate basis for a constitutional attack and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, Davis v. Thomas County, Georgia, et al., 380 F.2d 93 (1967). In the case now under consideration a group of black citizens contend that the system results in invidious discrimination against them because of their race, diluting their voting strength and making it difficult for them to participate meaningfully in the election process. As a remedy the Plaintiffs seek a court-ordered realignment of the County into single-member districts with direction that each district elect one resident of that district to the Board and that only the voters of that particular district be authorized to vote on the candidates from that district.

The Plaintiffs here do not contend that they are denied the right to vote or offer themselves as candidates for office and otherwise participate in the political process. They contend that because they are the minority race in the County they are not likely to succeed in electing blacks to office in an at-large election and they anticipate that if the realignment plan which they urge is put into effect they will be successful because some of the districts would have a black majority population. They contend that it is not necessary for them to show that the at-large system was established with a purpose of discrimination or that its authors were motivated by racial considerations.

The Defendants contend that the fact that an election system may have a disproportionate racial impact because of racial residence patterns is not sufficient to sustain a constitutional attack on the system. They contend that a presumption of racial discrimination is unwarranted, that the Plaintiffs must claim and prove a discriminatory purpose in the establishment of the system. They also contend that it should not be the policy of the law to guarantee any candidate or identifiable group a seat in any governmental body.

At the time an evidentiary hearing was held the Plaintiffs introduced evidence intended to demonstrate that the at-large election system which has been in effect since 1898 has a racially disproportionate impact in 1976 and they urge that this situation in and of itself would authorize this Court to direct that another system be adopted. It seems to be clear, however, that such a view is contrary to the teachings of recent decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States. In the case of Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976), the Court said:

"The central purpose of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is the prevention of official conduct discriminating on the basis of race. It is also true that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment contains an equal protection component prohibiting the United States from invidiously discriminating between individuals or groups. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 74 S.Ct. 693, 98 L.Ed. 884 (1954). But our cases have not embraced the proposition that a law or other official act, without regard to whether it reflects a racially discriminatory purpose, is unconstitutional solely because it has a racially disproportionate impact.

"Wright v. Rockefeller, 376 U.S. 52, 84 S.Ct. 603, 11 L.Ed.2d 512 (1964), upheld a New York congressional apportionment statute against claims that district lines had been racially gerrymandered. The challenged districts were made up predominantly of whites or of minority races, and their boundaries were irregularly drawn. The challengers did not prevail because they failed to prove that the New York legislature 'was either motivated by racial considerations or in fact drew the districts on racial lines'; ...