Memorandum Opinion

    , IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

I FoR THE NoRTHERN DISTRICT OF TE)(AS
LUBBOCK DIVISION

REV. ROY JONES, et a1.,

JANZ 5 ffil.l',tiffs,
)
)
)
)
) crvrl AcrroN
)

al., )
)
)

RECETVED

v.

CITY OF LUBBOCK, TD(AS, et

Defendants.

MEMORANDTM OPINION

This case came on for trlal before the court on the 10th day of

January, 1983, with all parties and attorneys present. The court has

heard and considered the evidence offered, the pleadings, and the brlefs

aad'arguments of the attorneys. The case is pending before the court on

remand from the United States Court oi Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Jones v. Cltv of Lubbock, 640 F.zd,777 (5th Clr. 1981); Jones v. Cltv of Lubbock,

682 F.2d 5O4 (5ttr Ctr. 1982)

Subsequent to the courtts original jud-gment in this case, on June 8,

ltg7g, the Supreme Court, of the Unlted States decided t\do cases, City oi

Moblle v. Bolden, 445 U.S. 55 (f980), aud Rogers v. Lodge, _ U.S. _,
102 S.Ct. 3272 (1982). The remaud to this court was for the purpose of

reexamining the evidence and to give appropriate conslderation to the

teachlngs of these two Supreme Court decisions whlch were decided after

the courtrs origlnal judgroent ln this case.

In additlon, the Congress of the United States has amended the

Vot,lng Rlghts Acr of L965, Pub. L. No. 97-205, 96 Srat. 131 (June 29,

1982) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. S$ 1973 et seq.). This amendment

to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is alleged as an additonal ground for

rellef by the plaintiffs ln their flrst amended original complaint.

At the comnencement of the trial on January 10, 1983, the court announced

that in reaching lts final decision, lt would consider not only the evidence



OO
introduced at the current trlal, but the court would consider as part of

the evldence ln thls case all the testlmony and exhlblts which had been

introduce the first trial ln 1,978. It wduld be ln llght of all of

sal"d evldence that, the court would render lt,s decislon.

The court has previously fl1ed a rnerDorandun oplnlon to support its

1979 judgoent, and the findings and conclusions in that memoranduo

opinion are incorporated hereln, except that, lf there is a confllct 
.'

between the 1979 memorandum and this memorandum, the findings of fact

and concluslons of law in this opinion w111 prevail. Further, the court

adopts all of the stlpulations of the parties."" p"ra of 1ts findlngs of

fact.

Although the meuorandum opiaion of June 8, 1979 sets forth the

controversy involved and the posltions of the respectlve parties, the

court surmarlzes the nature of the controversy as follows:

The naned plaintiffs, representing two se_parate minorlty groups,
Lt

Blacks and Mexican-Anericans residing in the City of Lubbock, contend

that the at-Iarge system of election of the four members of the Clty

Councll of the City of Lubbock constltutes arr abridgement and dllutlon

of thelr vote in such races. Thqy point out that the at-Large systen

does aot have any resldency requlreuent, that the candldates are required

to recelve a maJority of the vote before being elected, that the candidates

run by a nr:nbered place, which constltut.es an anti-single shot vot.ing

pract.ice, and that these requirements deny thelr constltutional rights

under the Flfteenth Amendment and the Votlng Rights Act of 1965 as

,mended. Itre plaintiffs have also pled a Fourt.eenth Amendnent violatlon,

LI
For the purposes of this opinlon, the term "Mexican-Americans" will

be considered to include "Hispaniesr" "spanish surnamed" and those of
"spanLsh-origln." Although the court recognizes that distinctions rnay
be drawn between the various terms, the court belleves that such distinctlons
do not affect the findings in this case, and all such groups are considered as
comprising one minorlty class known as "Mexican-Americans."

-2-



but rhis |t"ntion sras neither argued nor presented to alta .a

this second trlal, and the deteruination of any such Fourteenth Aslendment

violatlon is not necessary. The defendant clty and city officlals

counter with. the posltlon that there is no dilution or denlal of these

mlnorlties to fully partlclpate in the electlon process in Lubbock,

Texas because Lubbock peralts one to announce and run for places on the

Clty Councll wlthout payDent of a fl11ng fee, Ehe necesslty oi a petltlon,

or any other restrict,ionl and that all parties, including minorities,

can vote without the payment of any poII tax and without any hindrance

whatsoever from the clty or any of its officlals.

In entering lts lnltlal judgoent, this court atteEpted to folLow

the standards and crlt,erla as requlred by the Unlted States Court of

Appeals for the Ftfth Circult in Zinmer v. McKeithen, 485 F.zd L297 (5th

Cir. 1973) (en banc), afftd' on other grounds sub nom. East, Carroll Parish

School Bd. v. MarshaLl, 424 tJ.S. 636 (L976), and Nevett v. Sides, 57L F.zd

2Og (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denled 445 U.S. 951 (1980), as welJ- as the

United States Suprene Court in Ehite v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973).

The decisions in Moblle and Rogers, citing l{ashington v. Davig, 425 U.S. 229

(L976), and other Suprepe Court decisions, reguired a discriminaLory

Lntent before relief could be given for an alleged Fifteenth Amendment

violat.ion

The Congress of the Unlted States, in amendLng Section 2 of the Voting

Rlghts Act of 1965 on Ju,ne 29, 1982, added language which has been referred

to as a "results'r test as distinguished from the intent apparently requlred

by Mobile and Rogers. The CongressionaL Record of the Comittee RePort

of the Unlted States Senate oa this voting rlghts amendment, Senate Rep. No.

97-4L7, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in July 1982 U. S. Code Cong. &

Ad. News 177, indicates that it was the intent of Congress to reestablish

the standards and criteria of the various circuit courts and United States

Supreme Court as the law existed in this area prior to Mobile and Rogers.

The Congress failed to require a discriuinatory intent in either the

-3-



the estabLlshment or maintenance of an electlon practice or procedure

and, in addltion, set forth certaln standards that It felt should gulde

the courts ln determLning whether there was a vlolation of the Fifteenth

Amenduent and a violatlon of the Votlng Rlghts Act of 1965 as auended.

These changes, as enacted by the Congress of the Unlted States, require

a dlfferent approach to the problem of at-large elections than that' ..

required prior to such auendment oi even that that was reguired by

Zirnner and Nevett v. Sldes.

Therefore, this court w111 analyze the evidence at both the flrst

and second trlals and apply such evidence to the standards as lndicated

in.the Comqlttee Report of the Unlted States Senate. These standards

are very slmiLar to those set forth in Zlomer, but lf there rras any

doubt prior to the amendment of the Voti.ng Rights Act as to whether

or not discrlninatory intentlon was required, that doubt has now been

finally removed. Ttre reuoval- of any regulreuent of discriuinatory

intent as an eleuent of recovery for violatlons of the FLfteenth Asrendment

or the Votlng Rlghts Act as amended requi.res a reevaluation of the

evidence.

This court w111 not agaJ-n reclte the general facts but these are

completely found as flndings of fact in the court's origlnal opinlon

on pages two through five, lnclusive. However, there has been some

updating of these facts and the evldence now shows the population la

1980 ln the City of Lubbock ts 173,979, of whlch 125,039 or 71.82 are

white, L4r2O4 or 8.27 are Black, 31,085 or L7.92 are Mexican-Amerlcaa,

and the remaining 3r651 or 2.LZ are classlfied as "others." (S,Jpp.Stip.Ex."SS-127).

In analyzing the typical factors. suggested by the Senate Co"'mlttee's'

Report, the court finds and concludes as follows:

-4-



A.

THE EXTENT OF AI,IY HISTORY

OF OFFICIAI, DISCRIMINATION

This factor lras dlscussed as a primary factor in the June 8, LgTg

memorandum oplnlon on page 32 under "Effects of Past Dlscrimination. I'

As orlginally found, and the court again flnds, there has been a'history

in Lubbock, Texas of official discrimlnat,ion and it has been extenslve.

Attached as Appendix A to the courtrs origlnal opinlon are Texas Constltutional

provisions and Texas statutory law, which also applied to Lubbock. It

appears that racial discrlmination rras at one time the official policy

of thls state, Lncluding denial of minorltles of thelr rlght to vote.

Although the court does not flnd that such official discrimination exists

in Texas or tn Lubbock todaj, lt ls al-most uncontradicted that such

offlcial dlscriminatlon did exlst to a wide extent aE the turn of the

century and for many, Dany years thereafa:r. _ In view of the courtrs

flnding ln 1ts orlgLnal opinion that there hras a history of officlal

d{sq3{'n{nation ia the Stat,e of Texas and that these discriminatory

practlces and procedures were in exlstence ln the City of Lubbock in

the earlier years in the century, such factor points to the concl-usion

that the present election procedures in Lubbock result frou past

dlscrinlnatlon.

B.

TIIE EXTENT TO IIHICH VOTING IN

THE ELECTIONS OF LUBBOCK IS RACIALLY POLARIZED

The orlginal oplnion, page 9, found evldence of raclally polarized

voting in Lubbock. The hearing held in January of 1983 further establishes

this fact. Although the facts used and considered by plaintiffsr expert

witness may have omltted other contributing factors, he did use the evidence

-5-



in the record of thls case in reachlng a determlnation that there was

racial polarizatlon ln the votlng patterns of Lubbock. His concluslons'

based on a correlatlon rnethod to measure polarization in voting, found

a very hlgh correlation, .90 or rnore, ln analyzing flfteen races where

Mexicao-Americans ran and seven where Blacks were candidates. . He

testifled that a .5 finding would be a high correlation of the measure,'

of polarlzatlon in voting but .9 as he found in most of the races analyzed

was very hlgh, ln fact two-thirds of them were above .9 and all above

.5.

The evidence polnts to the inescapable conclusion that there is a

hlgh degree of polarlzed voting ln Lubbock. The defendants have correctly

potnted out that ln reaching thls correlation factor, the plalntiffsr

expert wltness, DE. Robert R. Brlschetto, used census data rather than

actual voters for one of the tlro rueasures in his study. Nevertheless,

the court believes that the results tre atiainld are so strong that' even

had precise votlng statlstics been aval1ab1e, polarlzed voting would

have been shown. Although it ls not the defendantsr burden to furnish

controvertlng figures, defendantsr own exPert wttness, Dr. Delbert A'

Taebel, after describing ecol-ogical fallacy and the effect factdrs other

than ethnlciEy uight have on voting behavior, admitted that with correLations

as high as those found by Dr. Brischetto, there is polarized voting in

Lubbock, but Dr. Taebel quallfled thLs sdatenent by saying he belleved

that ethnicity rras not necessarlly an "overrLdlngrr factor.

The exlstence of such a hlgh degree of polarized voting, on the

part of aLl races in tubbock, is a factor strongly lndlcating that the

rights of minorlties have been abrldged or dlluted because of their race

or color in the use of an at-Iarge systetr.

-6-



c.

THE EXTENT TO WHICH LUBBOCK }IAS USED.

IJNUSUALLY LARGE ELECTION DISTRICTS. ETC.

The evidence establlshes the followlng:

1. That Lubbock, Ln usi-ng the aE-large system of electlon, constit,utes

a distrlct of 91.5 square ralles

2. That Lubbock requlres a najority vote, or a runoff, before any

person can be elected as a member of the City Council.

. 3. Although there is no ordinance prohlbiting anti-single shot

votlng, the requirement that the candidates for the City Councll ln

Lubbock, Texas announce for and run for a numbered place is tantamount

to an anti-single shot provlslon

4. There ls no requirement that a candldate reside in a particular

sectlon or area, whlch has resulted ln the election of Anglo candidates

to the Clty Council- from the west and southwest or predominantly AngJ-o

portions of the city.

Ttris factor weighs heavily ln favor of a findlng of dilution or

abrldgement of the rlghts of minorltles to vote in Lubbockr s at-large

eleetions

D.

IS TIIERE A CANDIDATE SLATING PROCESS A]i[D

ARE MINORITIES DENIED ACCESS TO THAT PROCESS

The court has not been convinced by the testinony at either trial

that there presently exists any candidate sl-ating process in Lubbock.

At one time, tweaty-flve or Dore years past, there \Jas a grouP, nade up

of Anglos, known as the t'Emplre Builders." Itrls was not, a highly structured

group but consisted mainly of white business and professional men who

would meet and urge certain citizens of Lubbock to run for clty offices

-7-



and in tu ive them their full support. No ninority

known to have been lnvlted or to have attended any of

Apparently this organizatlon has not exlsted fo. *"ny

no evldence bf any other slatlng group in Lubbock.

orng

Platntiffs would urge Ehat prlor to the 1982 electlons, a for:ner

mayor, Dr. Granberry, was the host for a luncheon at ttle Universlty Clty

Club at which flfty to sLxty white business and professlonal men were.Ln

attendance for the purpose of agreeing on candidates for cLty offices.

However, the evidence also shows that at, least one promlnent member of

the Black cormunity was lnvlted to the meeting and there was no discussion

or conslderation given to whether or not minorities could attend or

woriLd be invlted to attend. One wltness testified that he had on at

least trro occasions urged members of the minority corrmunlty to run for

city offlce but had not been successful except in the case of a school

board member.

The court finds that there is no sfaifng process ln Lubbock and

therefore this factor does not welgh Ln plalntiffsr favor.

E.

THE EXTENT TO IMICH I.{INORITIES IN LUBBOCK

BEAR THE EFFECTS OF DISCRIMINATION IN AREAS

OF EDUCATION, EMPLOY'I'TEM, A}iID HEALTH

The evidence indlcates that minorlties, in the past, hrere discrininated

against in the areas of educatlon, employment, and health whLch, under

an at-large system, results in a dllution or abridgenent of minoritlest

right to vote. While 74.82 of the Anglos are high school graduates, only

30.37. of the Mexican-Americans and 45.L2 of the Blacks have high school

degrees (Ex.P-7A). Ihe unemployment rate as of JuIy 1982 for Lubbock

SMSA ls 57 for Anglos, 8.62 for Blacks, and 9.37" for Mexican-Americans

(Supp.Stip.198). Accordlng to the l-980 census a total of 28,821 persons

Ogroup member ls

their meetings.

years and there ls

-8-



in Lubbock County llve below poverty Ievel, of which 15,399 or 53.4

percent are elther Mexlcan-Amerlcan or Black (Supp.Stip.188). At the

tine that this court wrote its original oplnion in June of L979, the

lnfant nortallty rate ln the Clty of Lubboek was seventh highest ln the

natlon for clties of lts size, the uaJorlty of these deiths being among

minorltles. Thls factor has largely been remedied at this date as ..

indlcated by the stlpulatlon as to the testiuony of R. D. Goodman (Ex.D-7A).

The health departuent budget has lncreased frorn $787,684 in L977-78 to

$1,739,673 in 1982-83, an lncrease of over L2O7" over this period of tlne

(Ex.D-6A). In addltloa, the Lnfant mortality rate ln Lubbock has now

dropped below the state or national averages (Ex.D-7A).

![r. Charlie Guy, a respected former editor of the local paper,

testifLed that when he flrst went on the school board in the 1930's he

was appalled by the condltion of the schools where the minorltles were

the predominant race. He st,ates that he i.-ediately urged the schooL

board to rectify these condltions, and that a program was conmenced to

do so. Although Lubbockts schools are nor, largely desegregated, it did

take a lawsult to effect such desegregatlon.

Ihe evldence further establishes that the income of mlnorities ls

much less than that of whltes and in clty ernplo)ment thls is also true

(Supp.SEip.170 & S.rpp.Stip.Ex."SS-24")

The court concludes that the extent of past discriminatlon ln such

areas as education, euployuent, and health has, according to the wltnesses

on this subJect, hl-ndered their ability to participate effectlvely in the

political process. The extent of such discrimination has greatly narrowed

in recent years, but the effects on effective partLcipaEion in the politieal

process by minorities still exlst. This is expressed ln several \rays,

-9-



one of ,n is that minorities do not vote because ", .terief that

thelr vote "wl11 not ,".., .rrything" and a general apathetic attitude

exists on the part of the minorities because.of srich past discrioination.

However, lt is not,ed that in recent years, Black and Mexican-Amerigq,n

registration has Lncreased on a percentage basis to the degree lt approximately

equals that of Anglos. This is attrlbuted mainly, if riot soLe1y, to

voter registration drlves in the ruinorlty preclncts in Lubbock. C.

F.

HAVE POLITICAI CAI'{PAIGNS IN LUBBOCK

BEEN CHAMCTERIZED BY OVERT OR SUBTLE RACIAL APPEALS

There ls no evldence iu thls record iirdlcating that any racial

appeals have been made to the voters lu polltlca1 campaigns, and thls

factor does noE weigh ln favor of the plaintlffs.

G.

rHb TxTsNT To IIHICH MINoRITY GRoIIPS

HAVE BEEN ELECTED TO pUBLIg OFFICE !N LUBBOCK

The amendment to the Votlng Rlghts Act of 1965 states that one

factor the court may conslder in determinlng whether plaintlffs are

entitled to relief is whether or not members of a protected class have

been elected to office in Lubbock. There have been no Blacks or Mexlcan-

Americans elected to the CLty Councll of Lubbock or to the offlce of

Mayor of Lubbock although uany have announced their candidacy for such

offices and appeared on the ballot. Statistics ln this case indlcate

that some ninorlty candidates rnight have been elected had a slngle-member

systen of election to these offices been ln effect (Ex.P-8A).

Of course, it is axj.ouatlc that minorltLes do not, under the Constl-

tution or the Voting Rtghts Act, have a rlght to be elected, City of Mobile v.

Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980); Voting Rights Act, S 2(b) (June 29, 1982),

42 U.S.C. $'1973($)-, nor ls there any right of minorlties to have

-10-



an election distrlct so framed as t.o Buarantee or insure election of a

ninorlty candldate. l^lhltcomb v. Chavis, 403-U.S. L24 (1971).

But, under the totalLty of cl::cumstances, the court finds that the

fact that there have been no uinorlty members elected does mltigate ln

favor of the plaintlffs.

Defendants polut out that a Mexican-Anerican has been elected to ''

the school board Ln Lubbock which has boundary f.ines almost coinciding

with the boundary lines of the City of Lubboek; however, this member of

thl school board was elected under a p1uraL1ty-vote system. Defendants

also rely on the fact that there is a Mexlcan-American representing the

Lub6ock area ln the Legislature in the State of Texas, but he was elected

after the enactment of a law whlch created a sLngle-oember district.

Prlor to that, the at-large electlon for the Leglslature was in effect

and mlnorities were not elected during that period. Likewlse, a BLack

was eLected as a Justice of the Peace in the November 1982 electlons as

a candldate of the Republlcan Party. IIis Democratic oPPonent lras a

Mexicau-Amerlcan, and thi.s race ls inapposite to thls situat.ion, because,

agaln, the Justice of the Peace.race occurred in a single-member distrlct

and one minority ran against another uinority.

E.

HAS TIIERE BEEN RESPONSIVENESS ON TTIE PART

OT ELECTED CITIZENS TO THE PARTICIII.ARIZD NEEDS

OF },TINORITIES IN LUBBOCK

Agaln, the court would refer'to lts memorandum opinion of June 8,

L979. In that opinion the court detailed the evidence whlch proved and

establlshed, without doubt, that, the City of Lubbock has, and for many

years past, responded to these particularized needs. Thls factor

ls not deened to be one of the more import.ant ones by the Senate

-11-



Coromittee, but was emphasized ln Zimmer and other cases. If responsiveness

vrere the only factor to be constdered by thls court, judgment would be

entered for the defendants, because the overwhelming evidence establishes

a real responsiveness by the Clty of Lubbock, lncluding lts elected offlcials,

toward the partlcularlzed needs of the cltyts minorlty residents.

I.

I,IAS THERE DISCRIMINATORY INTENT PRESENT IN

ESTABLISHING LUBBOCKIS AT.LARGE SYSTM{

Origtna11y, the court, elther expressly or imp1ledly, found that

there was no intent Eo dlscrlminate agalnst minorltles when the at-large

system was established lu Lubbock or ln the Dalntenance of that system

today. The court is st1I1 of the fi:m opinlon that there ls no discriuina-

tory intent by the City of Lubbock or any of lts officlals in maintalning

the at-large systen. The policy is neutral on its face, and those of

rhe present officiaLs of the Clty of Lubbock irtro testified are of the

opinion that lts maintenance is in the best interests of civlc management

and ihe most, effectlve way to have its elected officials reply and be

responsive to all of lts citizens.

However, thls does not mean that dlscriminatory intent was not

present when the declslon to employ the at-large systeu for election of

council members ln Lubbock was made in 1917. At the second trial,

evidence was i-ntroduced in the form of editorlals from the old Lubbock

Avalanche ne$rspaper in the perlod fron 1909 Xo L924 when a Mr. James L.

Dow was the editor, publisher and owner of this paper. These editorials

are shown in Plaintiffst Ex.l-A. It is not known whether or not these

editorials represented the general views of the citizens of Lubbock, but

suffice it to say that Mr. Dowrs editorials were unhesitant in expresslng

derogatory and vile remarks toward Blacks and show a bias and bitterness

-t2-



on hls part toward the Black race. The evidence also shows thar l'1r.

James L. Dow was a member of the City Charter Corunisslon that prepared

and subultted to the voters a charter to govern the City of Lubbock and

provlding for an at-large systen for electing lts council members.

In view of this additlonal evl.dence and ln llght of the past hlstory

of dlscrirnination, lncluding dlscriminatory enactment.s by the State ..

Legislature, the court now concludes that the establlshment of the at-

large systen for the electlon of Ciay CounciL members ln the City of

Lubbock was done wlth a dLscrininat,ory lntent.

CONCLUSION

. The above findings support a concluslon that the at-large election

system ln Lubbock results ln an abrldgenent or denlal of the right of

rninoritles to vote. Admittedly, all these factors do not point to such

resulEs, but under the totallty of the circuustances such resulEs are

found to exist la Lubbock and constitute a denial of the rlghts guaranteed

by the Fifteenth Amendment and the Votlng Rtghts Act of 1965 as anended.

These findings Lndicate that the plaintiffs are entitLed to relief.

As amended, Section 2(a) and (b) of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.

S 1973, provides as follows:

"Sec. 2. (a) No votlng qualificatioa or prerequisite
to voting or standard, practlce, or procedure shal1 be
irnposed or applied by any State or political subdlvislon
in a uanner which results in a deniaL or abridgenent of
the rlght of auy cltizen of the United States to vote
on account of race or color, or ln contravention of the
guarantees set forth Ln sectlon 4(f)(2), as provided iu
subsectlon (b).

"(b) A viol-atlon of subsectlon (a) is established if,
based on the totallty of the circumstadces, lt is shown
that the politlcal processes leading to nominatlon or
electLon lu the State or poIltical subdLvision are not
equally open to participation by meubers of a class of
citizens protected by subsectlon (a) in that its members
have less opportunity than other meubers of the electorate

-13-



to parElclpate ln the polltlcal process and to elect
representatlves of their choice. The extent to which
members of a protected class have been dlected to office
ln the State or polltlcal subdivlsion ls one circumstance
whlch may be considered:.Provlded, That nothing in this
section establlshes a right to have members of a protected
class elected in numbers equal to thelr proportlon in the
populatlon.'l

The guestion to be deternlned by the court, based on thede relevant

factors and under the totallty of the circumstances, is: Do the ,oembJrs

of the two classes of minorlties ln this suit, Blacks and Mexican-Americans,

have- less opportunity than the other uembers of the electorate to

partLcipate in the election process and'to elect oembers of their choice?

If so, the practlce or procedure of the at-large system of the City of

Lubbock w111 be ln vlolation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and relief

will be awarded. The answer to thls question is in the afflrmative. Under

the findings of the court with respect to the factors which the Congress

deemed to have been relevant to the determLnatlon of this question, and

under the tot,ality of all of the circumstances and evldence in this case, lt

ls inescapable that the at-large systen in Lubbock abridges and dllutes

oinoritiesr opportunltles t,o elect meubers of their own choice and that their

opportunity ls much less than that of the other members of the electorate.

In view of such concluslons and findings, the court further finds

that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as amended, $S 2(a) and 2(b), prohibit

the further use of the at-large system for the electlon of City Council

members in the City of Lubbock, Texas.

Secondly, as the court has deternined above that discriminatory

intent was involved ln the original establlshnent of the at-large systeE

in Lubbock in the year 1917, that such at-large system ls a violation of

the Fifteenth Amendoent of the Const.itut.ion of the United States even

though discriminatory intent is not required by the Congress in the

-t4-



Votlng Rlghts Act, the flndlng of discrLminatory *a"rra ln thls case

fulftlls the requlrementa of Moblle and Rogers.

By order of even date herewlth, Ehe court will subrnit lts

plan for redistrlctlng the clty.

The Clerk w111 furnish a copy hereof to each attorney.

ENTERED thls 20th day of January, 1983.

proposed

Northern Dlstrlct of Texas

ERT O. WOODI.IARD

Chlef Judge

-15-