Buck v Davis Reply Brief for Petitioner

    ; r, ' r- I c (' ., I --,i,r ,,. !,f-$,ru EASTERN DrsTRrcT o, ,r*^,Ct..t.g-', -- \', ''n."
!

CIVIL ACTION NO. P-8 t-4 9 -cA

A. H. SEA}ION

APPENDIX IIAII

nr--F- !.t - ...--,.-:

versus .

cllET UPHN.|, ET AL
a.

Before JoHNsoNr circuit Judge, ,ARKER and sTEGER., oist,rict
,Judges..

{IOHNSONI Circult .Iudger ..,.!,2;)

, ..1: !

!---L-, t .'tti'.iThre protracEed proceeding commenced in lgg2..when an actron ,. ;
, .'i.],as Elred charrengtng the .Texas Legislat,urere reappporttonmenE oe .i;, ,1,

theetat,econgressionaldi.sErlct,s.@,536F.Supp.,:,i:iii,.
93r (E'D. 

'"*:..r9.q2) 
(seamon r). r{e need not, rehash Ehe prlor ,,ii$'ffii .r-'.--, tpss,Irt.,lr rr. we need noE rehash Ehe prtor . . ,,illilliil

event'a tn tliLq":lonr.as the case htsLory ls ser forrh aE reng.n ri#d'ffi'

rior. declslon.' 
+a upham v. seamon, I02 s.cE. 1518 (1982).. ' :;]{iillnj 

rF..e..r v t rJscuu!,u t Lez D.gE. I5.Lg (1992) .. 
::,i:,,j]$

REcEr!EDyR:t

r Judge Williu* W"yn" Justice, Chief Judge, EasEern DisErict .i,i:l8f":i:::e,::1.;il":i:,;iiil::r:i:::i ili,'""red by *rieE rudse i'icharlesrcrark, uni Eed stit"" courr or ^;;;;ir"rII ;ii:";til;n" '., 
., i'Ctrcuit, on Sept,ember f i, -fgSi. --dii"""ou, 

decision in Seamon LJudge Justice iecused himself and ahi;E Judge crark, app6TiE.r- ', .,tludge sEeger Eo f ill-trre"-racancy on our paner on August 15, r9g3. 
'T!,

, ,r.;:'

--.?-t--:t-

t7-Tt--'E rre-
a



"politlcal thlcket"
s.ct. 69I (19,621 .

a
oE

-.J__.. vsLr. ,,.o !rtrtp l.ll Ene

reapportionment. See gaker v. Carr , g2

I

: r'

.t.

' :ii.
;;r

I'
!.:

't
,' 1.. t,

i:1..'-.i,. 
6r.

,..'".9,1,,i'. -.,.'.,.l.S
':'iiifiii..
..: .:,l4i

'. .r:Jr
t,.

. 1l.. .. ,
: l'f

..; '
.. ,..{

' .. I
.r . ,r,!i.

. ...,;

.:

RepresentaEives oE the Republican par t,y for Ehe st,aEe of
Texas (Republlcans) and the Dalras Branch of the National

:.. Assoclatlon fo.r the AdvancemenE of corored people (NAAcp) joln as

plalnEiffs ln the case sub iudice and contend Ehat t,he Texas' a- i.

Leg islature r.s :edistr icting of Dallas count,y (s.8. 4g0) violates '

sectlon 2 of t,he Voting Rights Actr 42 U.S.C.A. S 1973 (West

SUPP. 1983), and the Eourteenth and fifteenth amendmenls Eo the

Untt,ed Stat,es'COnstltut,ion. Only Ewo districts are at issue ln
thls litigatlon; bpth of Ehese are ln Dallas County - disErtcts 5

and 21. We have examined meElculously S.B. 4g0, the evidence
presenEed to us at trial, and the parties contenElons in their
post trlar brlefs and lre find t,hat s.B.4g0 does not violate
section 2 or the United States Constlt,utlon.

it

I.
The plvot,al. lssue present,ed Eo thls panel cent,era around

S.B. tl80rs construcEion of dlstricts 5 and 24 in Dallas County.

under s.B. 480, t,he minorlEy populaEion in Dallas ie praced into
tno dlgtricts in which minorlty voEers consEitute sizeable
percentages oE the populat,ion. specif icalry, dist,rict 5 has a

black populaLlon of rg.ozt and an hispanic concentration of
L2.24lt for a totar minority populat,ion of 3l.g6l, whire in
dtstrtct 2{, the black popuratlon consE,ltuEes 3l.G9s oE t,he

distrlcE and hispanlcs constlt,ule a 13.15r concent,raEion, for a

-tR --..F.
GIUFF.- rr--- ,r.ffilF

i.i
'ri

artie tions a Distr



- 
'',,

The Repubricanv.'and t,he NAACp mainEai,n thaE.-the

reglslature's drawing oE distrlcts 5 and 24 dirutes minority
acces8 to Ehe political process in violation of amended sectton z
and th€ united sEates constlt,ut,ion. They argue that the mtnoriEy
coramunlty should have been packed inEo a single nsafe,. districg,:'
ln which mlnoriEy voEers would compromise approxirnately 65t oE

-a' the populatlon. DefendanEs, representaEives of the Democratie :

Party of Texas (Democrats) and the s.EaEe of Texasr r€spond

conLendlng thaE rnlnority voters' access Eo Ehe politlcal process
ls noE dlruted by s.B. 480. rndeed, defendants conEend that s.B.
{80rs t,reatmenE of Darlas maximizes minority access to the
poritlcar pEocess by arlocating significanE minority voting
strength among two disEriccs, thereby providing minority voEers
with the abillEy to have a signlficant impact on Ehe erectoral
proces.s ln districts 5 and. 2rl. They maint,ain thaE rninority
vot,lng clout ls maximlzed since the candidates in dist,ricts 5 and

24 nust, be responslve to the eignificant minority communlties in
thelr re6pec,ti; {.!srr lcrs. 

.l

rr. The Poriticar ThickeE: s.B. 4g0's HisEorv and procedural

BeEore ,"u"ti'ng the merits, we pause to seL fort,h the

acEivlt,ies surrounding'.t,he GBth regisraEure's adopt,ion of s.B.
{80 and the Attorney Generalle reacElon to S.B. 480's secEion 5

submisslon. See d2 U.S.C.A. S 1973 (c) , We also briefly discuss
Ehe ca6e history. The folrowing discusslon consEiEut,es our

F

...,
.itr'

,; ^ti f,.'dlir
..: ..iq:

1tr'
iii:

I

.:

: '.'i.' !
''!',r,i'
-'r:i:ifu..:.rr-.

,l'ii:il["
;,#,,,1{i.
.. .'i:'tl ,
l:l.i:;'. S'
.1 g:.1:,. .;.t,

-3-



. . : v- !s!b .r..rJrrr p(uv roe [ne tacEual f - nework for our' -sl
resolutlon of the meriEs in secEion III.

AtEer t,he dust had set,tled in seamon r, and the l9g2
electlons had been-.carrled ouE under this 'Courtrs 

f nEerim plan,
' the Texag Leglslaturg was faced with the task of redistrictlng
' the Texaa'congressional dtstricEs in a manner that,, hopefully,

:'
would conport with section 2 and the united staEes

a

constlt'utlon. passed pursuanE to articre rrr, s 30 of Ehe Texas
. " constlEutlon, Tex. const. arE. rrr, s 30, s.B. 4g0 consEit,ut,eg

the presen.l Texas congressional redlstricE,ing plan and, as wlll
' be 8een, rePresents the wishes of an overwhelming majority of the

' mlnorlty and non-nlnority members of the Texas House of
. Represeotatlves and the Texas Senateo

' rn vlrtuatry all respecta, s.B. 4go mirrors the plan drawn
by thls Court ln SeamoF I. OnIy the following seven dist,ricEs
valy fron the court-ordered plan used in the l9g2 electionsl
dlstricte 3, 6r 24, and 26, in the Dalras counEy area, districts

1 21 and 23 ln the Bexar county area, and disErict, L2, in TarranE
County.

t

s.B- 480 adopted, in its- ent,irety, Ehe court-drawn plan for
distrlcE 5 in DaIIas Countyr andr €ss€rtially, disErict 24 was

readopted by the I,9gisIat,ure. l{hile some disagreement was

encountered in adoptlng s.B. {g0, Ehe Ei.nal birl represents t,he

will oE Ehe overwhelming majority of Ehe Texas regisrators. The

btll was adopEed by the Texas SenaLe on May Z, I9g3, by a vote of
26 to 5 and uas passed by t,he Texas House of RepresenEat,ives by a

,oa: of 105 to 3t on May 27, lgg3, with minor amendmenr,s. The

-{-

', ri=
'il,,iflr

,,ur,r&

' .:'ai.,r,

. 1!
'1"'

.'.. .i.,
" 1...

T, lr'.r}]r

:..,.'jll
'l; :' 11:l.. i. I. t;..t

j9'

. .'t.
' '.t

t



ev.rvva/l r.rl uue nouse amendmenEs. rMay Zg,
-land, t,he raw became eEfect,ive when Governor white reEused

or slgn the bill.
The' voting record of minoriuy legisrators on s.8.. 4go

a telllng accounE of Ehe overwherming support mustered by

acE among mlnoriEy members of the Texas LegislaEure. The
:

f orrowing char t se t,s f or th the minor I Ey membe rs r votes :

TABLE A,

MINORITY STATE SENATORS RECORD ON
SENATE BILL {80

In Eavor:
WASHINGTON (black)
SANTIESTEBAN (Hispanic)
TRUAN (Hispanlc)
URIBE (Hispanic)
VALE (Hispanic)

Opposed:
NONE

1983,

to veto

y ields

the new

. TEXAS HOUSE OF' REPRESENTATIVES
!,IINORITY T.IEMBERS RECORD

ON SENATE BILL 480

' :.'
I

- ; ,i,1.

' i . rt*

,:ihl' '\' ;:!r -j I . arr'

' t:., ,tn'
...,: .,

''i;"'.' ;'; .

t

Hlspanicb 1n favor:
BARRIENTOS...
BERIANGA .,'
CAVAZOS' cotrAzo
GAMEZ
GARCIA, A.
GARCIA, M.
IIALL, w. '

. HERNANDEtr

HISPANICS OPPOSED:
MORENO, P.

Blacks in Eavor:
CARY
DELCO .

HINOJOSA
MADLA
MARTINEZ, W.
MORENO, A.
OTIVEIRA
RANGEL
SALINAS
TEJEDA
VALLES

(r8)

(1)

LEE, E. P.
PRICE

-5-



HUDSONT S.

Blacks opposeds
NONE

(-) 'l'llOI'tF'
WILSOT

{, S.

(8)

reaction to S.B. 490
no probative value

See Defendants ExhibiE ,A".I

Thenr S.B. .{90 was piesent,ed to the AEtorney Generar.
pursuant Eo section 5 0f Ehe voting Right,s Act for
precle.arance. 42 U.S.C.A. S 973c. The Attorney. General

' responded favorabry and preereared s.B. 4g0 0n september 27,
.

1983.' In preclearing S.B. dgO, the Attorney General made the
followlng observatlons about Dallas County.2

our anarysis ts thaE minorities in Dallascounty have.participaEed f reery and il;timesdec isivery- ii-congrLss ionii -erici 
ion"."'-in.v

-..--.------.------...::--

1' The evidence also demonstraEed t,hat the Texas Legisrat,ure,Has presented with Ehe ogportunity Eo create a "safe. di;a;i;i-;;ireadoptlng s'8. 1, which'would 
"rl"i" a dls[.i"t-Iomparabre. to It'haE requesred by rhe Repubria";;-;;j.rn" NAAap] ienator cralsl{ashington tesEitiea conlernl"g .i"oiirv-regiJi"c"i", reacEion tothe proposalt -L>.e'qs\rto r'Eaqtrron E

A: Senator Washington, do you recall thatdur_lng- [thel lggJ fegi-glative session, -rt,"r[s.8. I'st Dallas _coiEiguiiri"n-;;;-;ir"ilatas aJ f100r amendmenu 6y n"p."""ntativeJackson ,., in the House ? ' ---s -- r ' ' t

Al yes, slr.
Q: And -do you recarr wheEher Ehat amendment
T::?lyg9:."nI supporr, rrom minoriiy
leg lsIaEors?

A: It did noE. It did not receive one vote.
See Record, vol I, EE li9.

2. We note lhe AtEorney Generalrsfor factual background. We have pii"uaAttorney General.s preclearance of s.B.
9ir. No. BZ-ILIZ, siip op. at 24; n.f-I983) ( uhree-judge couit,):

.t

"t'r

480. See ttaior v.(8.0. LE; Eepmt

only
on the
Treee,

!<qrIFFr!r-t.-

-6-



simirar pr'\rusions. -in i;;;;",i,"i"of..j;;: ;:have occurred in rast year's-congressionarerecEion. rte have rounct no uria6n"e-ir,"t-i^serecEing f rom among^ yi.t,uarly inriniu"-p.opu,gp.lons, . Ehe regi:ritlve irJgi"nr, was ihfectedby a raciar or itnnic mocive]-'Nor were vreabre .o concrude that s.g. rgo when 
"orpii"aa".!l:-. "* requires (Beer v. U.S. , 4iS-U.S.r30, (1976) -- wirtr Ehe'6;ffissinar disEr[crsdrawn in r9z3 is in any meaitngeur-iesp;;t-reErogresslve. Accordingly, tfre staie.ni" recthe burden imposed by t." toting Rights ect'. wlth respecr to t,he ballis af"tiicE!.

undaunted.by s.B. 4g0rs overwhermlng support, Erom minorrty
legtslators and success beEore t,he Attorney General, Ehe

Repubricans and the NAAcp filed their petiEions crarming EhaE

s.B. {80 d.iluEes minority access to t,he poriEical process tn
Darras county. l{e schedured a trial 0n the merit,s and the triar
was conduct,ed on November 3, I9g3 in AusEln, Texas. All parties
were pernltted to introduce evidence and He have recelved post,-

. trlal brlefs fron Ehe partles.
nertt,e.

We move to a considerat,ion of the

l.' t

III.
Act.. .., ' ,' '

Plaintif f s . craims agarnst s.B. ,rg0 follow f amrriar paEhs,
Initlally, plaintlffs claim's.8. 480 has the eEfect oE dlluting
mlnority access to-t,he pollEicaI process in violation oE amended

section 2. . Next,, plaiirtirfs advance const,iEutional charrenges to
's.8. {80rs draring of distrrcts 5 and 2i. Deferring t,o Ehe axiom
that, 'cases should be resorved, where possibter or staEutory
rat,her than constiEucronal groundsr" we proceed to the section z

-7-

r7-- -

-



lssue. t'taior v. rrI ), civ. No.
.., t',

B2-II92, slip crr-;' at, 43.

A. _Sect,ion 2. 
.

whlre the amendments to sect,ion z ace of recenE vint,ager H€

are not Ehe flrst to inEerpreE section 2's provisions nor Ehe

first, to appry its principles. Recently, Judge porit,z, wriElng

Eor a three-ludge..court, interpreted the amendment,s to section z,..' 
'

concluded'that, amended section 2 iwas consEitutional,, and provided.

varuable insight inEo sectlon 2 analysis. .&9 &taior v. Trqen,

Clv. No. 82-1192, sllp op. (8.D. La.s Sept, 23, l9O3) . Moreoverr

.rudge Randall, also wrlting for a three-judge court, recentry gave

exhaustlve treatment to the section 2 amendmenEs and furEher

lllumlnated the manner in which Ehis Court may analyze a sect,ton

2 case, lq the context of Dalras counEy. see Terrazas y.

Clementsr Civ. No. 3-81-2205R, slip op. (N.D. Tex.l Jan. 4,

1984). Flnding ourselves in substant,ial agreement with our. 
.

learned colleaguesr analysls oE section 2 and Ehe principles oE

analyels set, forth ln their oplnionsr wB avoid further explicEion
oE sectlon 2ts legisraLtve history and proceed to the meriEs.

Section 2.presently reads:

(a) No voting qualtEicatlon or prerequisite
to voting, st,andard, pracElce, or proCedure
shall be imposed or applied by any State orpolittcal subdivision in a manner which
results in a denial or abr ldgmenE of E,he r ight
of any citizen of t,he United StaEes t,o vot,e on
account oE race or colorr o( in con!,ravenEion
of t,he guaran Eees se t, f or t,h in sec t ion
1973b(f) (2) o!'this title Iwhiclr applies EheActrs protecEion Eo members of any-Ianguage
minorityl, as provided in subsect,ion (b) oE
this section.

I ' (b) a violaEion oE subsecEion (a) of this
section ls established if, based on Ehe
totaliCy oE circumsEances, it is shown that,

.:':$,r' !;'

,''.;.ifu'.'i ,trr'!
. ,.." lj'.r'

i'q.;11':}'

.' .i:



.,. .-.

t,he polit i. i processes Ieading Eo nom..,at,ionor election in t,he St,aie or polit,icaL
subdivision are noE equally open top?rlicipat,ion by members oi a class ofciEizens.protected by subsection iif -of 

thissection in t,hat, its members have i"!r--opporEuniEy Ehan oEher members of th;electorate Eo pa!ticipate in Ehe p"iiticalprocess and Eo elect representatiies oE Eheirchoice. The extent to inicn membe;; ;i 
"protected class have been erected to oifice int,he StaEe or poliEical subdivision i.-onucircumstance that may be considered:Provided. that nothinq in Ehis secti

f actors r.rere discussed
t,hese factors have not

has changed, of courser'
24 are drawn.

at leng t,h in Seaman
changed
is t,he manner in

:l'. I
, ..r.i:

,,1t

..1.t.

ti

stablishes a riqht Eo m ar

42 U.S.C.A. section t9Z3 (West Supp. 1983) (emphasis added). IE
is agreed generarry Ehat the language of amended sect,ion 2 was
alned aE codlfying pre-lo.rd.gg case law. see ciEv of Mobite v.

-&.Igsq, {46 u.s. 55 (1980) (plurality opinion) ; H.R. Rep. No. 227 ,
97th cong', J.st, sess. zg-30; s;Rep. No. {17 at 19-24 . z7-zgl
1982. u.s.code cong. & Ad. News at Lgz-202r 204-06. congress
also provided.an enumeration oE several objective facEors whlch

i

would be relevanEr y€t uncontrolling, in t,he courErs analysis oE

a sectlon 2 clalm.. Derlved f rom WhiEe and Zimmerr Ehe factors,
whlch we have Eully consldered3 ares

1. the exEent oE ?!y history of officiar discriminationin the sEate or porilicar suLaivision EhaL touched t,herlght of t,he mgmbers of the minority group Eo regisEer,to voter o( ot,herwise t,o parbicipaui in cire demoiraeic
Process,

----1:--:::-::::::-::-:i::' 
vo.ins in the erecrions oE rhe

3. Hany of these
I and our Eindtngs onsubstantlally. What
whtch dlstrlcEs 5 and

-q-J

.:F_..



*----r-:J- - ,:--.i:

.:
sEaEe or poritic-.i subdivision is raciarly porarized;4

3. the exEent t,o which tlre state or political
subdivision has used unusually large election districts,
majority voE,e' requlremenEs, anEi-singre shot, provtsions,
or ot,her vot ing pract ices or procedu res that inay enhance
Ehe opportunity' for discriminat,ion againsE Ehe minority
I rouP,

4 . if t,here is a cand idat,e slat ing process , whet,her Ehe' members of the minority group have been denied access to
that, process i

5. the extenE to which the members of Ehe minoriEygroup in the sEate or poliEicar subdivision bear elre
.- eEEects of discr tminat,lon in such areas as educaLion, '

. emplgyment and health, which hinders Eheir abili.t,y t;participate eEfectivety in the poliEical processi

5. wheEher porit,icar campaigns have been characterized
by overE or subEle racial appeals;

7. the exEent to whtch members of the minoriEy group
have been elect,ed to public oEEice in r,he juriidicti6n.

s. Rep. No. iu at 28-29, 1982 u.s. code cong. & Ad. News ac 206-

071 H.R. Rep. No. 227 at, 30 (footnot,es omlt,Eed); cE. whiEe v.

Reqest,er, 412 U.S. 755, 765-70 (1973) , Zimmer v. McKeithan, 485

8.2d at, L297, 1305 (5th Cir. 1973) (en banc) , af E'd on ot,her

421 u.s. 635 (igzo). rn addit,ionr congress ciced Ewo ot,her

factors t,hat, might have limiUed relevance:

n-

4. PlainEiffs and deEendants are sharply divided on the
issue of racially polarized vot,ing. The success oE minority
coalitions in recenE elections suggesEs EhaE bloc voting stitt
exist,s, Eo a certain degree, in oitlas Count,y. The evi6ence also
indicates EhaE, bloc voting is noE as exEensive as in Ehe past,.
Neverthelessr w€ are convinced Ehat, "such bloc voEing as may
exlst ln DaIIas does not operate as the Dallas disLricts are
sEructured...to deny hispanics [or blacksl an equal opporEunity
to participate in the poli Eicar process or erect cand idat,es of
thelr choice.' Terrazas v. ClemenEs, Civ. N.o.3-8L-2205, slip
op. at,5l.

-10-



j\

whether enJ. -.) ir a signi.ticanE lack of
responstveness on the pare of erected oEficials to Ehepar t icurar ized needs of t,he members oE Ehe minor i av 

-

grouP,

. wheEher the policy underlying the staLe orpolitical subdivision's use of-suih voLingqualif ication, p(€requisite to vot,ing, sEindard,pracEice or procedure ts tenuous. '

H. Rep. No. {r7 at 29, r9B2 u.s. code cong. E Ad. News aE zo7

(footndt,es omltted) I gL. Zimmer, 495 F.2d at'1305.

.i The.effect of amended seclion 2 is clear. To prevair, a

( 'lt

tt"
section 2 praintlff must demonstrate t,hat'in the EoEariEy of
clrcunstancesr the politicat processes leading to nominatlon and '

elect,lon were not equarly open to part,icipaEion by the group in
questlon:: thaE, it,s members have less opportunity Ehan dtd other
resldenEs in the district to parEicipat,e in t,he poriEical process

and to elect reglslat,ors of their choice., white v. Reqester,
{12 U.S. at 766; 42 U.S.C.A.. S 19?3 (b) , It is axiornaLlc t,hat, Eh9

failure of .a mlnority group Eo translat,e iEs voEing st,renggh lnto ' 
.,.,

proport,ional represent,atton wlll no! suf f ice to estabrlsh a '' : :,'.
.':

Eection 2 vlolaEi:n. There simpry is no rtghE -- staEuEory or 1:ll;'. .. ,.il
consEltutional to be represented by a member of a particular ' ...:.:,

..t
race. l{hitcomb.v. chavis, 403 u.s. L24, 156-57 (rg7r) , 42 u.s..c.

S 1973 (b) . With these well-setEled rules of substanEive law in

mindr w€ proceed t5 Ehe plainEiffs, clalms.

PIainLtf f s clain that S.8.. {80's t,reatmenB of dist,r ict,s 5

and 2l d irutes minor i Ey access s ince i t, sprl t,s a minor i Ey

communlty.lnto two districts. According to plainEtEfs, t,he

minorlty popuration in Dallas county can erect a .candidat,e oE

iEs choice" only iE minoriEy voters are packed int,o a',saEe'

-1r-



dlsEricE in which e{-)minori,ty popurarion opp.o'.)".651 oE the

overall populaEion. Pl.aintiEfs assert, thaE minority voterg have

dtlut,ed access lo:h" poliEical process unless t,hey can be

assured oE a safe dist,rict.
We are of the opinion that t,he plainEif fs.claims make

several assumptlons that violate the spirit, and leEter oE section

2 and [he Supreme .Court,'s rulings ln reapporEionment cases. .

Inltlally, plaintiffs argument assumes EhaE minoriEy voters are .

entltled to be represented by a member of Eheir race t,haE

nlnorlEy vot,ers necessarily are inadequately represent,ed by non-

ntnorlEy candldates. &g, E-&-, Record, VoI. I, at 24-2A, 75-75,

138. As we have seenr D€iEher assumpEion has merit. under

exlst,ing precedenE; nor do we find factual meriE in Ehese

assumptlons.

AddlEionally, plaintiEfs claims assume t,haE minorit,y

voters have. greaEer access Eo the poliEical process when mlnority

vot,ers are packed into a single saEe' districE.5 Y"t,, as many

courts have noted 'IElhere is no agreemenE, on whether the

polltical interqsu of a minorlEy group are best maxlmized by an

overwhelming majorit,y in a single districE or a subsEantial

proportion of the voEers in a number of dist,ricts.r Turner v,.

McKeithen, 490 8,2,d 191, 197 n.24 (5th Cir. 1973) . Unit,ed SEates

v. Board of Supervisors oE Forrest, Co.r 571 F.2d 95Ir 955 and

-----

5. Plaintiffs do not
district necessariIy wouLd
minorlty concentration in
f rom wh ich minor i t, ies are
dist,r ict,.

:t
., i,

-. .L
...1..k,

.('

contesE t,he fact that, creaEing a "safe"
regulre substantial diluCion oE

at leasl one disEr icc the distr ict
ex t,rac t,ed to be packed in t,he " sa f e'



n.I0 (5Eh Cir. I978ti:)rr," answer cannoE be 9r"ur, l, ,.o* academic

comment,at,orsl the diversity of their opinions only serves to
conf lrrn Ehe dif f icult,y of the choices....,,) . While plainEtf fs
claims make for a most, difficult and interesting academic.issue,

they do noE provlde t,he basis tor a finding oE a section 2

vlolatton. .. . 
.

In drawlng dist,ricEs 5 and 24, the Texas LegislaEure was

requlred Eo grappre wlth this issue in t,he context, of Darlas

county. obvlousry, t,he regisrat,ure concruded thaE the minority
popuration ln Darras shourd be praced into two disErlcts. rE

doee not forrow necesarity; lndeed, lt may not foLlow at arrr
that the leglslature's decis.ion was lnEected by a raclal moLtve

or that, t,he resurt of the legistat,urers decision is to diruEe
mlnorlty access to Ehe political processo

whlle the legisrature's intent, in draEt,ing section z is, by

no means gonErolling on the section 2 issue, iE does consEitute
relevant'evidence. Ma'ior v. Treen, Civ. No. g2-lI9G. slip op. at
67. The evidence presenEed Eo us convinclngty demonst,rated lhaE

polltical consid.erat,ions provided the crlEical st,imurl for s.B.
{80rs adopt,ion.. See Appendix A. As can be expect,ed,

redistricting commands.undlvided aEtent,ion from those candidates

whose dtstricts ri'e on Ehe cuEting board oE reapport,ionment,. rn

thte case, the evidence indicates that, poriEical support, Eor

lncumbents prayed a larg.e role in s.B. 480's adoptlon. such

moEtvatlons are generally present in redist,ricting decisions and

we f lnd no aut,hority condernnlng such consideraEions under secBion

2 principres. see Gaffnev v. cumminqs, 4Lz u.s. 735, (1973).

-13 -



'f i ,"--
exEensive minority input. The legislature r.ras prisented with t,he

"Comment, on the Texas Congressional Redistric.ting Submission by

t.he Black and Htspanic Members oE t,he Texas LegislaEur€r' whlch

vehemently opposed the concenEraEion of minorities in district 5,

as requested by Republlcans and Ehe NAACP in this case. g-S.

Defendant,rs Exhi.biE !1. The minorit,y vot,ing record also evinces

Ieglslative responsiveness to mlnority concerns. ggg Table A,

" Sectlon II, suPra; En.l supra. Simply put, the evidence

presented Eo us demonsErat,ed t,haE the legislat,ive decision to

adopt S.P. {80 result,ed primarily from a desire Eo protect,

certaln incumbents and to respond favorably to minorit,y

concerns. No basis for a finding of racial inEenE has been

present,ed. Nevert,heless, a finding of no racial inEent, does noE

remove S.B. 480 from the provisions of amended secLion 2. A

. tlndtng that,'S.B..480 had the effect, oE diluting rnlnorlty access

would sufEtce..

As noEed previously, the courts and scholars are

dlsEurbtngly undecided on Ehe lssue of whet,her minority voters

are best,. represenLed by two lmpact dlsErict,s or one safe

dlstrlcE. Whet,her a general rule could be dlscerned t,hat, would

have any consist,en-t, resulE ln application is doubtf ul. The

myriad different, potieical circumsBances existing in diEferent

dist,ricts would seem t,o'dety generalizations. Eortunately, we

need .not, resolve the general issue in Ehis proceeding. t{e need

only declde, under the Eot,ali ty oE Ehe circumstances in this

case, whether the legislat,urers decislon to create Erlo impact,

-I4 -

rri|l',-r-*:'-i-----,ffi-*erf.--j't-1l'



' disbr icus lnstead o'-l\n" saf e distr ict resulte<i -n unequar acceea

Eo Ehe poliEical Processes leading t,o nomination and elect,ion ln
dlst,r lcte 5 and 24 ,. so thaE the minor I Ey popurat ions in Ehose

d lstr tcts had less oppor Eun t t,y t,han d id other re s iden Es Eo

particlpate ln the political process and elect candidates of

the 1r cholce. . We.'.f ind no such ev idence

The evldence presenEed to us demonstraEes that, minorit,y

. vot,ers Exert; significant impact in dist,ricts 5 and 24, play

pivotal rores in key erect,ionsr and are capabre oE serect,ing

responslv€r sensiEive candidat,es of their choice. Past electtons

. support these f indings. In t,he 1978 general elect,ion ,

congressman Martln Erost,r dn ang10, 10sE t,he angro voEe in
dletrtcE 24 by approximat,ery 51000 vot,es, buE carried the brack

preclncEs by approximately 11r000 vot,es, Ehus winning the

erection by 51857 vot,es. simtlarly, in boEh t,he rgzg and the

I98O general elecEions, former Congressman Jim Mattoxr ilo angIo,

Ioet the anglo vot,e by a significant nargin, buE carried over 90t

. of the black vote ln bot,h elections, !.lat,tox won t,he 1978 general

erect,lon by 852",votes and the 1980 general electlon by.3,444

votes. CIearIy, E,he slgnif lcant minority populabions in
dist,rtcEs 5 and 24 cont,rolred Ehe outcome of these cruciat
electlons. SErikiagIy, Ehe only witness presented by Ehe

Republlcans at, trialr' Mr. Lee Jackson, conceeded t,hat, erecEion

returns esEablished Ehat minority voters can swing an elecEion in

. dlstrlcts 5 and 24, Mr. Jackson stat,ed:

There is one elecEion ln which one can clearly
say thaE the minorit,y community provided Ehe
decisive factor in Ehe marginal vicEory in Ehe
general elecE,ion of 1978, when Congressman

-r q-

' ,ir ri't
" .' ::i|.'

.:iitt,
ip!,iitr
",i'!'";.i'

t.

':i'



-t5-

,, -\ \,
Frost 

-de f e ,-16 I,uo Bermarr, a Re1>ubI icu,. '

candidaEe, tlre ltepublic.rn candidate received amaJority oE suppoit in the white r"ti"gprescincts of tlre <tistr icE, Cong.u""*ui FrosEreceived sisnleiganE suppoiE i;';i;;;ilycommunity, and that appeirs to have beengert-ainly a major faclor, and decisive-factorln thaE elect,lon.

See Record VoI. I aE 2I9.

E1ectionresu1Esin1982inbothdisEricts5and24once
again demonstrated the signlficant influence of minoriEy voters
ln these dlsErict,s. congressman Frostr ilo angro, received 9a
percenE of Ehe brack vot,e in the 1992 general erecElon against
Mrs. Lucy Patterson, a brack former member of the Darras ctEy
counclr. rn those precincEs that were over 90 percent, brack,
congressman Frost received 2lr90l votes to Mrs. patt,erson,s
L.426. stmilarly, rn district 5, congressman Bryant received
21284 of the voEes casE in 19 predominanEly black precinct,s whlle
his brack opponent, J. B. Jackson, received only rr2{3. rn Ehe

general election, congressman Bryant, received 97.6 percent, of Ehe

vot,e ln these precincEs.

Becaus'e of 'the overwherming support, boEh congressman

and congressman Bryant, recelved among black vot,ers, i.t is
surprising that, bot,h men have estabrished strong records
support Eor the co-ncerns of brack voEers. rndeed, both
congressman FrosE and.congressman Bryant, received Ehe NAACp,s

highest rat,ing in a recent, NAAcp study for their vot,es on issues
of speclal importance to the minortty coruruniEy. see Defendant,s
ExhtblE Ol see also Record, Vol I, at, 220.

Einarlyr w€ not,e EhaE Ehe pratnEiffs do not conEend EhaE

Prost

not

of

..t

J.1 ,,

'i+t'... r"tl.
. . '.. it.' ..

:',ii'.'r,t:tr

..... r.j
, ,,,

.i'

, t.
..



;---^.- , --..-- -!-r:r-'..--..

- 
^ 

.i',
. they uere not af f ol 

__ 
ld the oppor tuni By to pr€ss,-+. the ir v iews at,t ---:i-+ v..saL I

eveEy EteP oE the legistitive process or thaE Ehe actual
' Procelrsea leading Eo nominatlon and eleccion of candidat,es in

dlstrlcta 5 and 24. are not, tully open to minority voteEs.
Indeed, Judge Parker asked NAACP wit,ness Mr. Theodore Watkins Ehe

f ollowlng guest,lon:

'Q.r- I a"! you, again, did you noE have furr access Eopadt,lcipation in the regtslalive process i" far asexplessing your viewpoinE, with concern aE Ehe various
. .. levels?

!.. At Yes.'

Record, Vot, f, at 77-78.

B.. _eonstitut,ional VaIidit,y.

l{e have little diEf lcurty concruding.t,hat, praintiffs have

falled Eo prove a consEiEuElonal violation. we have already
concruded that, s.8.480 does not have the effect, oE dirut,ing
minorlty access to the polit,ical process. As Judge Randall noEed

recently 'Iiln Ehe absence of discrimlnat,ory result, there must,

be some doubt whether a showlng of int,ent, could even sufflce.o
Terrazas v. clemenEs, civ. No. 3-gr-2205-R, slip op. at, 75.
Nevert,helessr w€ have arso concluded Ehat. the regislat,uref s

declslon Eo adopt s.8.480 was not, infected by a racial int,ent.
see section rrr, "i "upru; Absent, a fl.nding of discriminaEory
effect or lntent, there.can be no constituEionar vioraEion.

Roqers v. Lodqe, 458 U.S. 613, 6L6-22 (I9BZ); City of tlobile v.

Bolden, 4{6 u.S. 55, 66-71 (1950) (prurality opinion of sr,ewart,

J.J.3 accord id. at 99-10t (white , J., disseot,ing) .

-17 -

'I

'. t'

rj.
't:,



/)
when first we weri thrust into this porit,icai t,r,icket, we

lrere conf ronted by.a Texas congresslonal reapporEionment plan

that, had failed Eo obtain section 5 preclearance, a plan, that in
the courtrs view, impermlssibry d irut,ed minoriEy access Eo the

pollt,icar process.'in Darras county and in porEions oE souEh

Texas. As best we courdr rl€ undertook t,he "unwelcomed

obligat,ion" oE Eashioning a courE,-ordered pran thab had nelLher

racially dtscrimlnatory purpose nor such an effecE. After an

appeal to the Supreme CourE, the 1982 elecEions vrere conducued.

pursuant, to t,he court-ordered plan.

since our first tangle ln this political thickeE, *iny.
things have. happened. Congress amended secEion 2 oE Ehe Votlng

Rlghts Act qnd deleted t,he inLenE, requirement, provlded for in t,he

origlnal act. Thereafter, t,he Texas LegisraEure convened ln
regurar session and passed s.B. 480; a new congresslonal

reapport,ionment pran t,hat, virtuarry mirrors the prior court,-
ordered plan. Finarly, s.B. 480 was precleared by Ehe AEtorney

General. Nevertheless, plainEif€s filed this acEion alreging
vlolat,lons oE sect,ion 2 and the united staues consEiEution. rn

. light of these occurrences, and ln lighE of the evldence

present,ed to us aE triall we have examined s.g. 490 carefully and

conclude t,ha! it,s provisions do not, violaEe secEion 2 ot the

uniued sLates constit,uLion. Accordingry, $re gradry exit t,he

poriEical thicket, and ret,urn t,he Eask of reapporEionment to iEs

approprlale arena Ehe Texas Leg islaE,ure.

-18 -

't'
. ,.,i

I'.:,

a ';l
.. , ,,|,..1

.:...r.i



tlay 25, I98 3

.

. Dear Fellow DemocraEs
..

yirr B::il:",i*;liltffiil.i:i:i.iii'.li;.En3iii;i.ii":;Tj".., *l' discuss the urioi-nouzy -ongr.""ionar n.ai=rii.ei'g gir1, . .is.B. .490, which urirr-l,"-oii"iiilsaay,s calendaro .

' BEQuEsTT'ii^iHU"3[ I5H ;fi1T,,8fiIffi[]l';,il*ll;*'*fffiffi[Hlll. . :i.
should this rirr fair, three DemocraEic congressr"n 

-t'i-' 
;:.'wourd be jeopardi."a; -von;;;;rirr, -s-iyuli-i"a 

xazei. 
_ir,Jr"fore 

. .:.r cannor_ov.i"tii" trrn Gp;;ioi". or 
-irre-pir""g" of rhis pran-.: . -_-_1: 

this rorm .".:i:;;*;t",ilXru.ic parry. -

in rhi"r3:":i:;*:;d:l?"i".l"Hi]::!.:T?:;";i:1.:,1"3H:::::i:, 
:Congressmen could t:iq";=i;lr::" to,- un,l, rhar, ,. ,or" villingff.:'ff::h:i:houE arnendmenti. -' rh" uher-Mauzy Birl ernboclies

This is not a perfecE plan. This is not the bestconceivable plan fro,n-"-u"o'o"rat,ic party viewpoinE. BuE it isthe best pran that ""..n_pass u:rder the set or circLEns.ancesthar ,e fincl ourserves. ::"iin;;;iy, ,- n"ve no reservarionabout, asking 
1:,f 

ro ,oi" to addpi ihi; plan. , varion
please girre the Democratic parEy. and these three irnperiled'congressmen yo*.'n"ip-uni your voEe on this vitar issue.

I

I

f{

....i .*
t. i).
: q rl'

.'rl'
el

gS,/gc

a:
,:,'. .., t--'

utE-

E ir--r- 
-a..=

{f!w.:,rq rJ[tqFb :T---< @r3rrrrvrry -r-?r . -.'

Democratically yours,

fit/s!,,{-
Bob SIagIe

lruW*n",ii,jffiry

?.-?F;:r lry.:tFr!-!+?--