Voinovich v. Quilter Appellees' Supplemental Brief

    N o. 91-1618

I n  T h e

&xvpnm (Emtrt at %  Inftpfr
October  T e r m , 1992

George V . V o in o vich ,
Governor of the State of Ohio, et al.,

Appellants,
v.

B a r n e y  Qu ilter , Speaker Pro Tempore 
of the Ohio House of Representatives, et al.,

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Northern District of Ohio

APPELLEES’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF

A rmistead W. Gilliam , Jr.
Counsel of Record 

Faruki Gilliam  & Ireland 
600 Courthouse Plaza, S.W. 
10 North Ludlow St. 
Dayton, Ohio 45402 
(513) 227-3728
T homas I. A tkins  
135 Eastern Parkway 
No. 11B(1)
Brooklyn, New York 11238 
(718) 638-4153

W ilson  - Epes Pr in tin g  C o . .  In c . - 7 8 9 - 0 0 9 6  - W a s h in g t o n . D .C . 2 0 0 0 1

© so



I n  T he

Bnprm? (Emtrt of tljr Imtrii Btntm
October T e r m , 1992

No. 91-1618

George V . V o in o vich ,
Governor of the State of Ohio, et al.,

Appellants,
v.

B a r n e y  Quilter , Speaker Pro Tempore 
of the Ohio House of Representatives, et al.,

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Northern District of Ohio

APPELLEES’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF

Pursuant to Sup. Ct. R. 25.5, Appellees file this supple­
mental brief for the purpose of presenting to this Court 
results of the November 3, 1992 election, which were not 
available in time to have been included in Appellees’ 
Brief. Specifically, this brief addresses the election re­
sults for Ohio’s House of Representatives in the urban 
areas throughout the state. The November 3, 1992 elec­
tion was conducted in accordance with the 1992 appor­
tionment plan that the three-judge court found uncon­



2

stitutional and in violation of the Voting Rights Act, 
which is the subject of the appeal before this Court.

The 1992 election results show that Appellants aggre­
gated black voters in districts already represented by mi­
nority legislators, where these voters had been able to elect 
candidates of their choice with white crossover voting. See 
Appellees’ Brief, Chart C. For example, the district repre­
sented by minority legislator Mr. Sykes had a 1981 black 
population of 35.40 percent and he was re-elected in 1990 
with 48.76 percent white crossover vote and 65.49 per­
cent of the vote overall. See Charts C and D.1 Appellants 
increased the black population in the district Mr. Sykes 
represents. See Chart D. Under the 1981 apportionment, 
the coalition of black and white voters in the urban dis­
tricts elected eleven minority representatives with over­
whelming pluralities. Id. Each of the eleven black legis­
lators won with more than 63 percent of the average vote 
in elections held from 1984 through 1988 and in the 1990 
election. J.A. 308. Seven of these eleven districts had a 
1981 black population below 50 percent. See- Chart D. 
Yet, in the 1991 apportionment plan the black population 
was increased in eight of the eleven districts represented 
by these legislators, six of whom won their districts by 
nearly a three-to-one margin or more 2 and won with an 
average of 78.47 percent of the vote in the 1992 election.

1 Mr. Sykes was first elected to that district in 1984, replacing 
a white incumbent, Mr. Crossland. J.A. 185. However, in 1984 
Mr. Sykes won by a greater margin than his white predecessor, de­
spite the fact that he had the lowest black population percentage 
(35.2) of the eleven districts represented by minorities. J.A. 200. 
Similarly, minority representative, Mr. Roberts, had no difficulty 
getting elected for the first time in 1986, replacing Mr. Orlett, a 
white representative, with as little as 36 percent black population. 
J.A. 186, 200. Chart D is included in the attached Appendix.

2 In 1992, Casey Jones won District 49 in Lucas County by a 
margin of five-to-one. Representative Beatty, who represents one 
of the eight districts where the population was increased, ran 
unopposed.



3

Id. Moreover, seven of the twelve legislators elected in 
1992 ran against white candidates. Id.3

Appellants claimed that they needed to increase black 
population percentages because the districts were repre­
sented by incumbents, arguing that a new candidate 
would be unable to win the election absent a guaranteed 
safe seat.4 However, Ms. Boyd, who is black, was a new 
candidate in the 1992 election and won the seat for the 
ninth district in Cuyahoga County with a plurality of 
83.46 percent. See Chart D. The black population of the 
ninth district was increased to 62.30 percent. Id. In 
fa ct , District 9, which was established for a non- 
incumbent, has 5.05 percent less black population than 
District 10, the most black populous district in Cuyahoga 
County. Yet, Ms, Boyd, the non-incumbent, won with a 
plurality of only 3.28 percent less than Mr. James, the 
fourteenth term incumbent from District 10. Id.

Another effect of aggregating blacks into districts that 
guarantee a black candidate a safe seat is that certain 
groups of blacks who were in districts where they were 
able to elect a candidate of choice were gerrymandered 
into a district where in the 1992 election, they were un­
able to elect their candidate of choice.

For example, the city of Lincoln Heights, Hamilton 
County, was located in District 24, with a black popula­
tion of 32.3 percent, under the 1981 apportionment. J.A.

3 In the 1992 election, white incumbent candidate, Jane Campbell, 
defeated a black Republican candidate in the 11th District, Cuyahoga 
County, which has a black population of 43.01 percent, and white 
population of 56.99 percent. Ms. Campbell won the election with 
81.09 percent of the vote. Thus, assuming that all of the white 
population voted for her, she still received a majority of the black 
population’s vote in her district, especially since her opponent only 
received 18.91 percent of the vote.

4 The statistics from prior elections do not support this argument. 
Id.



4

306.5 6 * 8 Democrat legislator Terry Tranter represented 
House District 24 and had a 90 percent voting record on 
issues of concern to the minority community. D. 112, Ex. 
17. Under Amendment D to the 1991 plan, Lincoln 
Heights, which has a black population of 99 percent, was 
moved to House District 36 which has a black population 
of 4.49 percent, D. 147, Ex. C at 77; J.A. 306. In the 
1992 election, Lincoln Heights voters cast 1,132 votes for 
Democrat candidate Mr. Stidham and only 176 votes for 
Republican candidate Mr. Schuler.0 Likewise, the city of 
Silverton, Hamilton County, has 47.4 percent black popu­
lation and under the 1981 plan was located in House 
District 25 which had a black population of 53.2 percent. 
J.A. 306. Minority legislator Helen Rankin represented 
House District 25 throughout the 1980s. J.A. 308. Under 
Amendment D, Silverton was also moved to House District 
36. D. 147, Ex. C at 77. In the 1992 election, Silverton 
cast 1,511 votes for Mr. Stidham and 990 for Mr. Schuler. 
Mr. Schuler won the election with 69.85 percent of the 
vote.

In Franklin County at least five precincts/wards (23F, 
24E, 42B, 42G, and 27E), which in the 1981 plan were 
located in House District 29 with a black population of 
38.5 percent (J.A. 306), were moved to districts with 
minimal black population. Minority legislator Ray Miller 
represented House District 29 throughout the 1980s. J.A. 
308. Precinct 23, ward F has a black population of 36 
percent; precinct 42, ward B has 44 percent; and precinct 
42 ward G has 34 percent black population. Under

5 Data relating to the 1981 districts, and population figures for
cities, princinets/wards taken from the 1990 census, are contained
in the CSU database that was stipulated into evidence. D. 131 
at 1.

8 Election statistics were taken from the General Election results 
obtained from the various County Boards of Elections and the Un­
official Report of Votes for Ohio House of Representatives compiled 
by Secretary of State Bob Taft.



5

Amendment D precincts/wards 23F, and 42B & G were 
apportioned to House District 28 with a black population 
of 8.66 percent. J.A. 306. These precincts/wards collec­
tively cast 419 votes for Democrat candidate Mr. Ryan 
and 302 votes for Republican candidate Mr. Tiberi. Mr. 
Tiberi won with 67.75 percent of the vote.

Under Amendment D, precinct 24, ward E in Franklin 
County, which has 48 percent black population, was ap­
portioned to House District 27, with a black population of 
3.57 percent. D. 147, Ex. C at 77; J.A. 306. This 
precinct/ward cast 154 votes for Democrat candidate 
Mr. Briggs and 55 votes for Republican candidate Mr. 
Thomas. In a three-way race, Mr. Thomas won with 
51.83 percent of the vote. Under Amendment D, precinct 
27, ward E, which has a black population of 35 percent 
was apportioned to House District 25 with a black popula­
tion of 8.41 percent. This precinct/ward cast 127 votes 
for Democrat candidate Mr. Schultz and 52 for Republi­
can candidate Mr. Mason. Mr. Mason won the election 
with 53.14 percent of the vote.

In Cuyahoga County, the Village of Oakwood, precinct 
A, ward 5, under the 1981 apportionment, was located 
in House District 17, which had a black population of 
26.14 percent. J.A. 305. Democrat Frank Mahnic rep­
resented House District 17 and had a 90 percent voting 
record on issues important to the minority community. 
D. 112, Ex. 17. Under Amendment D, the Village of 
Oakwood, which has a black population of 67 percent, 
was moved to House District 15 with a total black popu­
lation of 3.29 percent. D. 147, Ex. C at 77; J.A. 305. 
In the 1992 election, the Village of Oakwood cast 173 
votes for Democrat candidate Frank Mahnic and only 
36 votes for Republican candidate Mr. Wise. Mr. Wise 
won the election with 56.22 percent of the vote.



6

Respectfully submitted,

Armistead W. Gilliam, Jr.
Counsel of Record 

Faruki Gilliam & Ireland 
600 Courthouse Plaza, S.W. 
10 North Ludlow St. 
Dayton, Ohio 45402 
(513) 227-3728
Thomas I. Atkins 
135 Eastern Parkway 
No. 11B(1)
Brooklyn, New York 11238 
(718) 638-4153 
Attorneys for Plaintiff s- 

Appellees



la

APPENDIX 

CHART D

MINORITY REPRESENTATIVES

1990 1992
Winning Winning

1991 
H.D. #

Black
Rep.

1981 
Black 

Pop. %

Candidate 
% of 
Vote

1991 
Black 

Pop. %* 1

Candidate 
% of 

Vote2 3

8 Prentiss 74.80 88.61 65.64 86.78
9 Boyd * 34.80 N/A 62.30 83.46

10 James 94.67 86.69 67.35 86.74
12 Whalen 90.05 92.82 67.25 85.61
21 Beatty 46.80 71.55 54.30 100.00s
22 Miller * 38.50 67.91 44.68 75.05
30 Rankin * 53.20 73.37 55.98 79.26
31 Mallory * 45.90 70.47 49.16 68.44
38 McLin * 42.10 64.88 43.50 74.48
39 Roberts 36.10 64.48 41.69 73.74
44 Sykes * 35.40 65.49 43.07 73.58
49 Jones * 41.70 67.12 49.90 83.17

* Ran against a white candidate.
1 Figures relate to Appellants’ Amendment D to the apportion­
ment plan. J.A. 805-08.

2 Figures were taken from the Unofficial Report of Votes for 
Ohio House of Representatives Compiled by Secretary of 
State Bob Taft.

3 Unopposed.