Williams v. CITY OF TEXARKANA, ARKANSAS, Civ. No. 92-4001.

• Decision Date: 29 September 1992
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 92-4001.
• Citation: 861 F. Supp. 756
• Parties: Londell WILLIAMS; James Louis; Joyce Grissom; and Mattie Roberson, Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF TEXARKANA, ARKANSAS, a Public Body Corporate, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas

861 F. Supp. 756

Londell WILLIAMS; James Louis; Joyce Grissom; and Mattie Roberson, Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF TEXARKANA, ARKANSAS, a Public Body Corporate, et al., Defendants.

Civ. No. 92-4001.

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division.

September 29, 1992.

John W. Walker, Mark Burnette, John W. Walker, P.A., Little Rock, AR, for plaintiffs.

Paul Lester Dickerson, Lavender, Rochelle, Barnette & Dickerson, Texarkana, AR, for City of Texarkana, Ark., Bobby Ferguson.

Paul Lester Dickerson, Lavender, Rochelle, Barnette & Dickerson, Texarkana, AR, P.A. Hollingsworth, Hollingsworth Law Firm, P.A., Little Rock, AR, for Bobby Ferguson, Danny Gray, Hubert Easley, Jim Nicholas, Nelson Shaw, Greg Giles.

Paul Lester Dickerson, Lavender, Rochelle, Barnette & Dickerson, Texarkana, AR, M. Brent Haltom, Lewisville, AR, for Miller County Ark. Election Com'n, David Orr, Lou Ann Dean, Margaret McRaney.

David J. Potter, Texarkana, TX, for Danny Jewell.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

HENDREN, District Judge.

Plaintiffs brought this action against the defendants alleging violation of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act as amended in the election of the City of Texarkana Board of Directors. On August 5th and 6th, 1992, this cause was tried to the Court. Post-trial briefs and motions have been filed, and the Court hereby enters its findings and conclusions as follows.

Stipulation

The parties entered into a stipulation which was accepted by the Court. Said stipulation provides:

1. Filed on January 2, 1991, this action was brought by African-American registered voters, James Louis, Joyce Grissom and Mattie Roberson, who reside within the physical boundaries of Miller County, City of Texarkana, Arkansas and a African-American member of the City of Texarkana, Arkansas, Board of Directors, Londell Williams. Named as defendants were the City of Texarkana, Arkansas, a Public Body Corporate; Bobby Ferguson, Mayor of the City of Texarkana, Arkansas; Members of the City of Texarkana, Arkansas, Board of Directors, Individually, and in their official capacities: Bobby Ferguson, Danny Gray, Hubert Easley, Jim Nicholas, Nelson Shaw, and Greg Giles; The Miller County, Arkansas Election Commission; The Members of the Miller County, Arkansas, Election Commission, in their official capacities: David Orr, Lou Ann Dean and Margaret McRaney.

2. The plaintiffs have brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1973 as amended seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. They allege that the at-large method of electing city directors effectively dilutes the voting power of African-Americans in Texarkana and excludes them from meaningful participation in the election of city directors. They sic plaintiffs ask the Court to enjoin the defendants from conducting any further at-large elections and to require the establishment of seven (7) single-member districts from which city directors will be elected.

3. At present, three members of the of the sic Board of Directors are elected at-large. Four members of the Board of Directors are elected from wards. Three wards are majority white and one is majority black. Position number one of the at-large positions is designated as Mayor. Directors serve for staggered four-year terms (three are chosen at one election, and four are chosen at the subsequent election), but each must declare candidacy for the specific vacancy the candidate seeks to fill. A plurality vote determines the winner of each contest for the several vacancies.

4. The Court has jurisdiction over this cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343.

5. The population of Texarkana is 22,631, 32% African-American and 68% white. The parties agree that the voting age population of Texarkana is approximately 27.6% African-American and 71.3 white. Based on the foregoing census data, the Court finds that this is a fact. The City of Texarkana and the City Board of Directors did not draw the ward boundaries or designate the at-large districts, nor do they have any authority to do so. Plaintiffs acknowledge that it is not the responsibility or duty of the Board of Directors to draw ward boundaries.

6. Texarkana is characterized in large part by segregated residential housing patterns. That is, many neighborhoods are substantially occupied by citizens of only one race. Approximately 72% of the African-American population of Texarkana lives in a identifiable geographic area referred to by the parties to this litigation as ward 2.

7. Although they possess a variety of political views, the African-American residents of ward 2 have tended to share certain common political, economic, and societal interests. That is, the African-American population has generally tended to comprise a cohesive and unified political force with respect to the predominant concerns of African-American residents.

8. Londell Williams is the only African-American to serve on the Texarkana board of Directors. He was appointed in 1978, ran unopposed in 1982 and 1986; and his opposition in 1988 was an African-American, John Gholston.

History

By way of history, the Court notes that the City of Texarkana has utilized the City Manager form of government pursuant to Act 99 of 1921, Ark.Code Ann. §§ 14-47-101 et seq. since the 1960s. Act 808 of 1977, Ark.Code Ann. § 14-42-202 provided, inter alia, that the majority of the members of the governing boards of Arkansas cities should be elected from single-member districts. Shortly after the passage of said Act 808, the City of Texarkana went to its present four-three plan. The most recent legislation affecting city-manager forms of government (and therefore that of the City of Texarkana) was the City Manager Enabling Act of 1989 Ark. Code Ann. §§ 14-61-101 to XX-XX-XXX (Supp. 1991). This act ratified the various city-manager forms of government then in operation and provides cities with a variety of alternatives for structuring or re-structuring the city-manager form of government. The basic options are as follows:

(1) All members of the board of directors are elected at-large;

(2) An odd number of directors, with a number equal to one-half plus one elected by ward and the balance are elected at-large;

(3) All but one member of the board of directors is elected by ward, with the mayor being elected at-large;

(4) All members are elected by ward. Ark.Code Ann. § 14-61-107.

At the present time, as the parties have stipulated, the City of Texarkana uses option no. 2.

Arkansas law provides that the size of the board of directors of a city may be changed by ordinance of the board with two limitations: (a) the board must always contain at least five (5) members; and (b) the board must always contain an odd number of members. Ark.Code Ann. § 14-61-105.

An election among these statutorily permitted options may come about from petitions filed by electors, Ark.Code Ann. § 14-61-113, or by reference of an option selected by the board to the voters. Ark.Code Ann. § 14-61-114. Whatever the option being used, however, the directors (and where appropriate the mayor) are all selected by a plurality. Ark, Code Ann. § 14-61-112.

Finally, under Ark.Code Ann. § 14-61-109, the county board of election commissioners of a county has the right and responsibility to divide the territory of the city into the number of wards called for by the structure of government legally in place in the city and these wards or districts are to remain in place unless changed or modified by order of a court of competent jurisdiction. Once fixed by the county board of election commissioners, representatives for each ward and/or district are then elected.

Law and Standards

Before reviewing the evidence in this case, the Court finds it appropriate to set out the applicable law and relevant legal standards to be considered when determining whether § 2 of the Voting Rights Act as amended has been violated. Section 2, as amended, of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, states:

(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) 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) 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 their proportion in the population.

All parties agree that the seminal case for analysis of vote dilution claims is Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986). The Supreme Court interpretation of the Voting Rights Act in Gingles has been referred to by an Arkansas federal district court as establishing a "rather uncompromising structure for the application of the law in vote-dilution cases." Smith v. Clinton, 687 F.Supp. 1310, 1313 (E.D.Ark. 1988) remedy adopted, id. at 1361, aff'd mem., 488 U.S. 988, 109 S.Ct. 548, 102 L.Ed.2d 576 (1988).

Violation of § 2 can be proved by showing discriminatory effect alone. Gingles, 478 U.S. at 43-44, 106 S.Ct. at 2762-63. Further, the Supreme Court in Gingles stated:

Subsection 2(b) establishes that § 2 has been violated where the "totality of

...