Williams v. City of Texarkana, Ark.

• Decision Date: 12 August 1994
• Docket Number: Nos. 92-3475,93-1713,s. 92-3475
• Citation: 32 F.3d 1265
• Parties: Londell WILLIAMS; James Louis; Joyce Grissom; Mattie Roberson, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF TEXARKANA, ARKANSAS, A Public Body Corporate; Bobby Ferguson, Mayor of the City of Texarkana, Arkansas; Bobby Ferguson, Individually and in his official capacity as a member of the Texarkana, Arkansas Board of Directors; Danny Gray, Individually and in his official capacity as member of the Texarkana, Arkansas Board of Directors; Hubert Easley, Individually and in his official capacity as member of the Texarkana, Arkansas Board of Directors; Jim Nicholas, Individually and in his official capacity as member of the Texarkana, Arkansas Board of Directors; Nelson Shaw, Individually and in his official capacity as a member of the Texarkana, Arkansas Board of Directors; Greg Giles, Individually and in his official capacity as a member of the Texarkana, Arkansas Board of Directors, Defendants-Appellants, Miller County, Arkansas Election Commission; David Orr, In his official capacity as member of the Miller County, Arkansas Election Commission; Lou Ann Dean, In her official capacity as member of the Miller County, Arkansas Election Commission; Margaret McRaney, In her official capacity as member of the Miller County, Arkansas Election Commission, Defendants-Appellees. Londell WILLIAMS; James Lewis; Joyce Grissom; Mattie Roberson, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF TEXARKANA, ARKANSAS, a Public Body Corporate; Bobby Ferguson, Mayor of the City of Texarkana, Arkansas; Bobby Ferguson, Individually and in his capacity as member of the Texarkana, Arkansas Board of Directors; Danny Gray, Individually and in his official capacity as member of the Texarkana, Arkansas Board of Directors; Hubert Easley, Individually and in his official capacity as member of the Texarkana, Arkansas Board of Directors; Jim Nicholas, Individually and in his official capacity as member of the Texarkana, Arkansas Board of Directors; Nelson Shaw, Individually and in his official capacity as a member of the Texark
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 1265

32 F.3d 1265

Londell WILLIAMS; James Louis; Joyce Grissom; Mattie

Roberson, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF TEXARKANA, ARKANSAS, A Public Body Corporate; Bobby

Ferguson, Mayor of the City of Texarkana, Arkansas; Bobby

Ferguson, Individually and in his official capacity as a

member of the Texarkana, Arkansas Board of Directors; Danny

Gray, Individually and in his official capacity as member of

the Texarkana, Arkansas Board of Directors; Hubert Easley,

Individually and in his official capacity as member of the

Texarkana, Arkansas Board of Directors; Jim Nicholas,

Individually and in his official capacity as member of the

Texarkana, Arkansas Board of Directors; Nelson Shaw,

Individually and in his official capacity as a member of the

Texarkana, Arkansas Board of Directors; Greg Giles,

Individually and in his official capacity as a member of the

Texarkana, Arkansas Board of Directors, Defendants-Appellants,

Miller County, Arkansas Election Commission; David Orr, In

his official capacity as member of the Miller County,

Arkansas Election Commission; Lou Ann Dean, In her official

capacity as member of the Miller County, Arkansas Election

Commission; Margaret McRaney, In her official capacity as

member of the Miller County, Arkansas Election Commission,

Defendants-Appellees.

Londell WILLIAMS; James Lewis; Joyce Grissom; Mattie

Roberson, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF TEXARKANA, ARKANSAS, a Public Body Corporate; Bobby

Ferguson, Mayor of the City of Texarkana, Arkansas; Bobby

Ferguson, Individually and in his capacity as member of the

Texarkana, Arkansas Board of Directors; Danny Gray,

Individually and in his official capacity as member of the

Texarkana, Arkansas Board of Directors; Hubert Easley,

Individually and in his official capacity as member of the

Texarkana, Arkansas Board of Directors; Jim Nicholas,

Individually and in his official capacity as member of the

Texarkana, Arkansas Board of Directors; Nelson Shaw,

Individually and in his official capacity as a member of the

Texarkana, Arkansas Board of Directors; Greg Giles,

Individually and in his official capacity as a member of the

Texarkana Arkansas Board of Directors, Defendants-Appellants, v. The MILLER COUNTY, ARKANSAS ELECTION COMMISSION; David Orr,

In his official capacity as member of the Miller County,

Arkansas Election Commission; Lou Ann Dean, in her official

capacity as member of the Miller County, Arkansas Election

Commission; Margaret McRaney, In her official capacity as

member of the Miller County, Arkansas Election Commission,

Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 92-3475, 93-1713.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 11, 1993.

Decided Aug. 12, 1994.

Perlesta Hollingsworth, Little Rock, AR, argued (Paul L. Dickerson, Texarkana, AR, on the brief), for appellants.

Mark Burnette, Little Rock, AR, argued, for Roberson.

Carlton Jones, Texarkana, AR, argued, for McRaney.

Before WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge, ROSS, Senior Circuit Judge, and KOPF, ^* District Judge.

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

The City of Texarkana, Arkansas, appeals from the district court's ¹ judgment ordering implementation of a remedial plan entered following the district court's ruling that the scheme for electing members of Texarkana's governing body violated section two of the Voting Rights Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973. We affirm.

I.

Four black registered voters of Texarkana commenced this action, alleging that the 4-3 scheme for electing the seven members of the Board of Directors, Texarkana's governing body, dilutes the voting strength of blacks and denies them the opportunity to elect the representatives of their choice. Under the 4-3 plan, four directors are elected from single-member districts, and three directors are elected at large. See Ark.Code Ann. Sec. 14-61-107 (listing alternative methods of selecting directors).

The district court found that the 4-3 plan violated section two of the Act and ordered that "the defendant City of Texarkana, the defendant members of the present City Board of that City and plaintiffs ... submit ... proposed plans for structuring the City of Texarkana's manager form of government and the election of the board members thereof." Dist.Ct. Order, No. 92-4001, at 26 (W.D.Ark. Sept. 29, 1992). In response to the court's order, the plaintiffs proposed a plan with seven single-member districts. The individual defendants proposed a plan with six single-member districts and an at-large mayoral position. After considering two proposed plans, the district court ordered that a 7-0 plan be implemented to remedy the section two violation.

The City appealed the district court's finding of liability (No. 92-3475), arguing that the 4-3 plan does not violate section two and, alternatively, that the district court should have imposed liability on the Miller County Election Commission. The City also appealed the district court's remedial order (No. 93-1713), arguing that the court should have adopted a 6-1 plan.

II.

Section two of the Act prohibits any state or political subdivision from using any "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure ... which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen ... to vote on account of race or color." 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973(a). To establish a violation of section two, the plaintiffs must show, based on the totality of the circumstances, that "members [of a protected class] have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice." Id. Sec. 1973(b); see also Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986). During the trial, as well as in its brief on appeal, the City of Texarkana argued that the plaintiffs had not established a section two violation. During oral argument, however, the City conceded that the 4-3 plan violated section two. We therefore do not consider the arguments that the City raised in its brief challenging the district court's finding of a section two violation.

Although the City concedes that the 4-3 plan violates section two, it contends that the Miller County Election Commission and not the City is responsible for the violation. The Election Commission is a defendant in this action because in addition to challenging the at-large election of three directors, the plaintiffs alleged that the black voters were "packed" into one single-member district. The Election Commission is the entity responsible for "divid[ing] the territory of the city into the number of wards ... equal to the number of members of the governing board to be elected from wards." Ark.Code Ann. Sec. 14-61-109. The district court found, however, that the plaintiffs had not proved that black voters were packed into one single-member district and therefore properly concluded that the plaintiffs' claim against the Election Commission had no merit.

As stated above, the district court found, and the City has now conceded, that the at-large election of three directors violates section two of the Act. Under Arkansas law, at-large director positions can be eliminated only if the electorate votes to change the manner of selecting members of the Board of Directors. Ark.Code Ann. Secs. 14-61-113, -114. The City contends that because a change in its form of government cannot be effectuated without approval of the electorate, it should not be held liable for the voting rights violation. That Arkansas law does not grant the City authority to choose among the alternative forms of city-manager government provided by Arkansas law does not persuade us that the district court's order should be reversed. Were we to accept the City's argument, we would have to conclude that although the 4-3 scheme dilutes the minority's voting strength, the plaintiffs are without a remedy, for all electoral schemes which pursuant to state or local law cannot be altered without approval of the electorate...