McCarty v. Henson Court Opinion
Unannotated Secondary Research
December 12, 1984

Cite this item
-
Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Schnapper. McCarty v. Henson Court Opinion, 1984. bfa3a0be-e292-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/4b719c10-26c7-4d44-879d-b94f42fcf675/mccarty-v-henson-court-opinion. Accessed April 22, 2025.
Copied!
ll34 v' iit.o '. ^,, i'...q --- 749 FEDERAL Rf,PORTER, 3d SERIES a, and followed any recommendations made concerning safety at tl.re Tiboscopl facility. Similarly, t}e production foreman fOr the coating manufactuiing unit where the acci- dent occuned testified that Tuboscope per- sonnel relied upon the expertise of AMF,s safety division in matters relating to safe_ ty. From the evidence presented, the jury could reasonably find reliance ana a tuitini into a false sense of security. Thus con-_ cluding, we need not address the first two alternatives, for establishment of any of the three is enough to support the jury,s findings. Finding sufficient evidenee to support ajury verdict imposing liability - under S 324A, we AFFIRM. l?,'lu"o,ilfl* "},iffi [,Story impact were not (2) the same findir H::1,'l;1,,,* ruxi.T"" & ;fi Affirmed. l. schools @=53(l) ,,,J"ffi .*l':lli,?::l1T'ffiX,,Hli by choiee of at-large scheme fo. el"ctioi? school board trustees, plaintiffs ;;; bound to prove that the plan had diseriiri natory impact upon their voting st"eng; and that the system was implement"t'J maintained with intent to aiscriminatl. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 14, lS; Fed.Ru-f Civ.Proc.Rule S2(a), 28 U.S.C.A.; VoUo] Rights Act of 1965, S 2 et seq., ", "r.ted, 42 U.S.C.A. 5 19?B et seq. 2. Schools @53(l) . In determining whether at-large elee- tion plan had discriminatory impact uoon voting strength and whether system was implemented or nraintained with intent to discriminate, court was to consider totalitv of circumstances generally and also criteria outlined by the court in judicial precedenl U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 14, 1b; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule SZ(a), 28 U.S.C.A.; Voting Rights Act of 1965, S 2 et seq., as amend"- ed, 42 U.S.C.A. S 19?B et seq. 3. Schools e53(1) .. - Opinion testimony of polarized voting did not alone suffice to show discriminati ry impact of at-large scheme for election of school board trustees, in violation of Four- teenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and dis- trict court's findings that at-large system had not been created or maintained with diseriminatory intenf and that there was failure of proof that system operated to dilute black votes or that it had discrimine- tory impact were not clearly erroneous, but, rather, were supported by the record. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 14, 15; Fed.Rules (liv.Proc.Rule S2(a), 28 U.S.C.A.; Voting Jack McCARTy, et al., Plaintiffs.Appellants, v. Ben HENSON, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 84-2006. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Dec. 12, 1984. A challenge to the atlarge system of voting for school board members was re- jected by the United States District Court for the Eastern Distriet of Texas, Robert M. Parker, J., and plaintiff black voters appealed. The Court of Appeals, Alvin B. Rubin, Circuit Judge, held that (1) opinion testimony of polarized voting did not alone suffice to show discriminatory impaet of at-large scheme in violation of Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and District Court's findings that the atJarge system had not been created or maintained with discriminatory intent and that there vr.a., I I I I ( I l i McCARTY v. FENFON rri'r' "^"-. - rre t+ tir {trsal - r -r-:*. - rrrhp i ;::fi: iH""dl*i,1lltlr.,":":*"11,111;3,E*Ti' I **ffi ,; 1T' I" di s irict co u rt, . * ":' il1f;*:? ;ti'"",1,}"i[l-J {i "[ ffi:ffi$ffi**gmmm*lff* f,,T*flI.xljTJrTiI "$ffiiiil].:'# rhe district court round: the Schoor Dis' l'*""xffi ','ff [Hil,{Ji:tis1'Ii]};Iillffi J"'"rl'ru'rm""l3ui;ii eiv-Proc.Rule szt"l, tza*U'i'6'e'' Voting '"p']"'i" is concentrated in the northeast- Hffi i:i :i' Ifl t? :ittrtl:gl'il,'f,r$$lUlll*"':li"1 n :l; iu7 i, u.s.c.A' s 1f rate 1960's by successive consolidation of C,ons[.Amends' 14' lD' several separate districts' cornett, r.n" u-ut'u' *icht'1' 9::' r.?Y :ilJ Jl::l fr,'$*:fi':"!ilt"'H ,.;';;;, i"x', for plaintiffs-appellants' Robert Bills, was defeated in 19?5. and Hens.lee & Ryan, Donald G. Henslee, ,r*^ " fn-- iif'O, Geneva Bailey, a black o""iJ p. nr"n, iustin, Tex', M-ike Y*ul.1 *o*"n, was anpoilld to fill a vacancy on "d;; r;;.:i;; n"r.".,1lal. & N. Lamar il;;il.' rn rgsi she was elected, but, ISD' *i"t tr'" ran for re-election in 1981' she Appeal from the United States District was defeated' t#i?t'ii"'g"tt""; Distriet of Texas' Black voters register and vote in l'amar Berore .LARK, chier Judge, G.LD- g",tl'#lllt*'l'llX.fiitrL: ?iiil BERG and RUBIN' ci*.,it Judges' Jtilffi the candirlacv of black persons for ALvrN B. RuBrN, circuit Judge: HIT* r*X':'#"liii:Il,H JI: Black voters contend that their vote has ffi; ;;" frovidirg educational t"Iit": U"""n"iil,rt"a, in vioiation of the fourt€enth t"n"-*"*rt rate for black students ts and fifteenth u*"nJ*"no' by the election i"^ti"tloj'lo*"' tt'an for whites' and on of schoot Uoa.a trultr.r ,i, f".g" and seek ii:"'}i;;' .i.r..r."nt of ,:tl_c. _?I]1" an order ,t,r, .n" *f,i*-mem"bers-of the iii,i,';;", black studenls perform signif- iil;'L;'r Independent School District ;;;;6'u"t*' tt'"n the statewide averase in Lamar County, h"*as, be elected from i"t'ii".u-ti'a"'"' Manv- black cit-z11ts single-membet aitit-t*-'the district court ;"";" il;-;;po't"a to advisory commit- found that tt'u ul-t"tg" tv:Tl. t''9 ,lo^t ffit' ;;JJ; tl" Boutd of Trustees in uu"n "'""t"a "' "';i;;;';d with discrimina- [iit# "i""tr"'"r and fiscal poliev deci- **' ir,t"t and that the Plaintiffs hr fii*'H*r#1"HJl"fr"llllrl;l''T'" 9a',,': nr' shce 1e? 5' made signir' natory impact. ,lu.ii.ci""l urt"l t"rora, i.*f"ii"* to r'i"" more minoritv emplov- us to overturn findings of this nut r" ul-,,- ""''ituil levels of school District employ- less we find them clJarly ur.on"or.. ,i'il ."ri.,"":.ularl.v as teachers' The Dis- cause the fact findings "r..3u1,1,1r1a.."t'l' i.i.i:. tf"tl "*pl'o'""' represent a slightlv the record, we affirm the district .orrit i.,*ii- Ott*ntaee tS'O%) than the black -* " 1116. ' t, proportion of the overall population (7.1%),' While the plaintiffs have -proved historical discrim'ination in areas of social lifqih East ' Texas and Lamar County, they have not proved that sueh past discritirination has a lingering present effect that currently lim- its minority participation in the voting pro cess or minimizes minority voting strength in the District. The court concluded, "plaintiffs have not proved that a discrimi- natory intent motivated or motivates the North [amar Independent School District in its utilization of the at-large election scheme." ll,2l As part of its conclusions of law, the district court also stated: Plaintiffs have failed to prove by a pre ponderance of the evidence that vote di- lution exists in the North Lamar Inde- pendent School District as a special form of discriminatory impact or effect whieh is traceable to the at-large election scheme-they have failed to show that the at-large election system operates to caneel out or minimize either their voting strength or their ability to participate fully in the political process. Plaintiffs have not proved by a prepon- derance of the evidence that the at-large election system was either created or maintained with invidious purpose. At-large election schemes are not uneon- stitutional per se.r To prove a denial of constitutional rights under the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment, the plaintiffs must prove that the atJarge election plan has a discriminatory impact upon their voting strength and that the system was imple- mented or maintained with the intent to discriminate.2 In determining whether these exist, the court should consider the "totality of the eircumstances" generally l. White v. Regester,4l2 U.S. 755, 765, 93 S.Ct' 2332,2339, 37 L.E,d.2d 314 (1973); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 4O3 U.S. 124, 15ffi0, 9l S.Ct. 1858, 1876-78, 29 L.En.zd 363 (1971). 2. City of Mobile v. Bolden,,+46 U.S. 55, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980); Indge v. Button, 639 F.2d 1358 (5th Cir.l98l). &e abo Jones v. Ciry ol bbbock, 727 F.2d 364 (sth Cir.l984)' .{_- ?49 FEDERAL REPORITR, 2d SERIES \. ina ,f," critpria outlined by this coud h Zimmer a. McKeithen-E ln Lodge a, Bi ton,l we indicated that, even afts Bol&t tle existence of Lhe Zimmer factors mighi be indicative, though not conclusive, of di!, criminatory purpose. l3l The district ceurt applied the Zinv mer critnna and found . none sufficieotly implicated in this suit to demonstrate either t actual discriminatory vote dilution or puF poseful discrimination in the creation o? maintenance of the atJarge electiou gyt tem. The conclusions of the plaintiffs'rit nesses, that the Texas legislature enaeted at-large election systems with the diserimi natory intent to dilute black voting strength, are unexplained and unsupported. These witnesses were unfamiliar with the legislative history and processes preceding the adoption of these particular statutes, and had little specific knowledge of how or why the legislative system is maintained and operated. The witnesses were also unfamiliar with the adoption of the Dis- trict's at-large election system and with how or why that system is maintained. The plaintiffs presented no other compe tent evidence, direct or circumstantial, that either the Texas legislature or the Lamar Independent School District adopted or maintained the at-large election system with the intent to discriminate against black voters. We do not, therefore, reap praise the district court's assessment of the weight to be given to the opinion testimony offered by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' failure to prove discrimi- natory intent supports denial of relief on the constitutional claims. However, the district court's findings, recited above, also show that the plaintiffs did not establish discriminatory impact. There is no evi- dence that candidate slating is practiced in 3. 485 F.2d t297 (5th Cir.l973) (en banc), afld on other grounds, sub nom., East Caroll Parish *hool Bd. v. Marshall,424 E.S. 636, 96 S.Ct' 1083, 47 L.Ed.2d 296 (t976). 4. 639 F.2d 1358, 1375 (sth Cir.l981). t, i t. the echt Bo otb( black P several that an would I blscks i tPecific the Prer numel0 Board's black ct funding dents, : visory and hir plaintif: Board's with s1 unreSP( crimina during not est sive to< Plain state P tenuout conced( both s against plaintif that hi; in the shows elected no maj quirem of mint es did , voting, show d The dence r oratr their cl caneels 5. 42t 6. 42L 7. *c. (srh ( _ *=4id,a- __ t - McCARTY v. HENSON . r'clt.erTabFld rl3a (t9ta) r the school district, antl the plaintiffs allege 1 or their ability to no other hindrance to fhe candidacy of political process. black persons for the board' Although several of the plaintiffs'witnesses asserted that an independent black Board member would be more responsive to the needs of blaeks in the District, none testified to any specific examples of unresponsiveness by the present Board. The district court citcd numerous uncontroverted examples of the Board's responsiveness to the needs of the black community, including participation in funding programs for disadvantaged stu- dents, appointment of black citizens to ad- visory committees, and efforts to recruit and hire more minority employees. The plaintiffs did not rebut this evidence of the Board's responsiveness by coming forward with specific instances of present Board unresponsiveness. The evidence of dis- criminatory hiring practices by the Board during the late 1960's and early 1970's does not establish that the Board is unrespon- sive today. Plaintiffs submitted no evidence that the state policy behind at-large districting is t€nuous. Although the defendanls have conceded that historically there has been both social and economic discrimination against black persons in the District, the plaintiffs presented no evidence connecting that history to present black participation in the political system. The evidence shows that candidates in the District are elected by plurality vote, and that there are no majority clr anti-single shot v<lting re- quirements that might prevent the election of minority candidates. Plaintiffs' witness- es did offer opinion testimony of polarized voting. but this alone does not suffice to sho*' discriminatory impact. The plaintiffs have not submitted evi- dence of an aggregate of Zimmer factors or a totality of circumstances to support their claim that the at-large voting system cancels out or dilutes their voting strength 5. 42 U.S.C.A, S 1973 (West Supp.l983). 6. 42 U.S.C.A $ ls73 (West Supp.l983). 7. See Jor;c: t ('iti o! l-ubbock,727 F.2d 364,379 (sri. Cir.195r; cii;r,., S.Rep. No. 417 ar 28-29, rl37 par[icipate fillly in the t41 In their eomplaint, the plaintiffs in- voked the Voting itigt ts Aet 5 but they did not make any specific allegation that the Act had been violated, nor did they raise the Voting Rights Act issue in their argu- ments to the district court. Instead, they relied on asserted violations of the four- teenth and fifteenth amendments. The tri- al court consequently made no findings un- der the Voting Rights AcL Although the plaintiffs argue in their brief that they are entitled to relief under the Voting Rights Act, the findings of faet by the district court on the constitutional issue show that it would have denied relief under the Act had the claim been urged. The Act forbids any voting practice that "results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color." 6 Its violation is established by proving discrimi- natory impact under a "totality of circum- stances." The legislative history to the Act lists a set of objective criteria to guide the courts in analyzing the discriminatory impact of an election system. This list incorporates the Zimmer criteria with a few additions.T Since the district court found no discriminatory impact, i.e., no abridgment of the right to vote on account of race, and that the political processes are equally open to participation by black per- sons, the plaintiffs have not established a violation of the Voting Rights Act. Al- though the Act was amended in 1982 to eliminate the requirement that a plaintiff under the Act prove that the election sys- tem was implemented or maintained with discriminatory intent,s the plaintiffs in this case have not establislled the denial or abridgment of their right to vote that is a prerequisite to relief. 198? U.S.Codc Corrg. and Ad.News 177, at 206- 07; II.R.Rct'. No. 227 at 30. E. 42 t \ : ^, q lq73 (West Supp.1983). See Jone: ,. L::\ t)i Lubbock,727 F.2d 364, 378 (sth Ci:-.lq i t E** 1r38 For these reasons, FIRMED. Edward Linn HEARTFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellee, Y. Sharon Mary HEARTFIELD, Defendant-Appellant. No. 83-2525. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Jan. 7, 1985. Former husband, a Texas resident, sued td enjoin former wife, a l,ouisiana resident, from litigating child support and visitation issues in l,ouisiana court under divorce decree originally issued by Texas court. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Joe J. Fisher, J., granted the injunction, and for- mer wife appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) District Court had jurisdic- tion to enforce compliance with provisions of the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act; (2) under the Aet, Texas had exclusive jur- isdiction to issue visitation and child sup port orders; and (3) the District Court lacked jurisdiction to issue preliminary in- junction where the l,ouisiana court had not yet acted in conflict with the Texas court. Reversed. Garwood, Circuit Judge, filed concur- ring opinion. Jerre S. Williams, Circuit Judge, filed dissenting opinion. l. Federal Courts e8, l5 In former husband's suit to enjoin for- mer wife from litigating child support antl visitation issues irr l,ouisiana court undcr 749 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES 't the jirdgment is AF- divqce decree originally issued by a Tbxss court which made child support contingent upon visitation, the Parental Kidnappins Prevention Act applied.both to the visita-_ tion and child support provisions, gysl though the Act does not specifically ad- dress child suppor| or, in any event, the child support issue was a matter of pendent jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C.A. 55 1?98A, 1738AOX3). 2. Federal Courts F8 District eourt had federal question jun isdiction to enforce compliance with provi- sions of Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act where courLs of two states asserted jurisdiction over a custody determination. 28 U.S.C.A. 5E 1331, 1738A. 3. Divorce G=303(l), 309.1 Under Texas law, Texas had continu- ing jurisdiction over modification of visita- tion and child support provisions of divorte decree of Texas court where father was resident of Texas, regardless of residenee of mother, who was made managing con- servator, and of the children. V.T.C.A., Family Code 55 11.05(g), 1L.52(2,5, 10, 1l), 11.53(d, g). 4. Divorce F303(l), 309.1 Under terms of the Parental Kidnap ping Prevention Act, Texas had exclusive continuing jurisdiction over modification of visitation and child support provisions of divorce decree of Texas court where father remained resident of Texas since the origi- nal divorce decree and where Texas had continuing jurisdietion over the visitation and child support provisions of the decree under its own laws. 28 U.S.C.A. SS l?38A(cX1), (d); V.T.C.A., Family Code SS 11.05, 11.05(g), lL.52(2, 5, 10, 11), ll.- 53(d, e). 5. Courts @508(2) District court lacked jurisdiction to en- join former wife, a l,ouisiana resident from litigating child support and visitation issues in l,ouisiana court under divorce de cree origiru)ll issuecl t'.t' Tt'xlis court where Louisiar,ll rrrurt hat.l not \'('l atted in flict witl, '; ',) as. ('ourt. Michael. defendantr Orgain, Everett B' tiff'apPelle APPeel 1 Court for Before l wooD, ci PER CU This casr child supl rights unt issued bY appellee E Texas, file in Texas s the mothe now a resi the child the Iouisir guccessful the mother ty of the tion for tI ana court the Texas Sharon vorced by Crcunty, T Heartfield tor of th, The divor< child supl the divorr three chil they hav, years. Er &s. In June the Jeffer requestinl In respor seel.ir:,: i: chil, :-,, .