James v. Sarasota Memorandum Decision

    AO 72A
lRcv.8/82)

33Hft-B .',tTiiarT', ::l^! .' i .'til3Bils'
PIainr i ffs ,

- "t Lr.",l n'

raupa DIVISIoN

SARASOTA' FLORIDA' €t aI"

De fend anEs '

i_j

uNlrED srATEs DISTRICT 999R1
"'r,ri ooie 

-oi 
!tn19l-9T ^FLoRTDA''

l.r:

L 8t-
?i 3 zr P:l '35

Case No. 79-1031-Clv-T-GC
vs.

CITY OF

MEMoRANDTM DECI slgI

FourblackresidenusofsarasoEa,Florida,filedthis

acrion in LgTg to chalrenge rhe method by which Sarasora ciEy com-

missioners are elected' The plaintiffs contended that the elec-

Eion of five at.laEBe co*nissio,,",, violated rhe VoE,ing Rights Act

of 1965 , 42 U.S.C. $1971 g !j9. and Ehe thirEeenth, foutteenth

and fifEhreenrh amendments Eo the united sEaEes constitution'1

ThedefendanEsarethefivemembersofEheciEycommission.The
suicsoughtadeclaraEoryjudgmenEEhat,theaE-largeSysEendilut-
ed black vocing strengEh' an injuncEion barring tn: 

::::::"::. an

;:":tt"t.;';:,-"; elections under the at-latge svstem and an

that Ehe citY's-pioc"eded soIeIY
Lt The plaintiffs dismi'q"9, Eheir allegations

etection p'"'"';;i;;;a tt'i"Eo.'triiuiiot' and

;;';;;'stLEuEorY allegations'



ordertequiringthecouurissionetsbeelecEedfromsingle.meober
distrt"[", 

rhe lawsuir was filed, the comsrisslon 
:"i::t::::"t",

for numbered seats and had Eo receive a uraJoriry of the voEes cas.

Eo vrin. Single shoE voEing in which voEels can concenEraEe their

voEesbehindonecandidatev,asnotpermitted.Althoughseven
blackcandidaceshadruninelevenelecEions,nonehadbeen
elected' 0n the eve of the t'tial of this case' the SarasoEa ciEy

comsli.ssioner s admiEEed rhac the at-1arge, ur""tion system viorated

the Vocing RighEs Act and agreed Eo devise a new rreEhod'

AfcerthepartiesweEeunabletoreachanagreemenE,the'r -- FA the

p,ai..r:;:":"0".n"'";;; 
each submirced a proposed plan Eo the

Court.Thecicy,sproposaldividesthecicyintoEhreedistricts.
ThreecommissionerswouldbeelecEedbyapluralicyofthevoEers
in each districc. In addicion, two comslissioners would be erected

au-IarBebyapluralityvote.Theat-largeseaEswouldnoEbe
numbered and uhus the Ewo candidates who received the mosE voEes

would be elected' The city submitted irs so-calted 3tZ plan and

rhe plaineiffs, 5/o plan Eo che voEe's in a referendum in Novem-

ber, 1983' The voEers selected the "t:''.,'^-'^',.'":::r:" ;t:i :::t'

:,,: :::':"."::,:"';"';"' EhaE plan vioraLes secEion 2 or the

VotingRightsacE'asamended,Pub.L.No.gT-205,$3,96Stat.
134 (198 2) ' amenj ing 42 U'S'C' S1973'

Ao 72A

-2-



CongressenacEedcheVotlngRighfsActoflgs5underthe

enforcemen. secEion of Ehe fifchEeenEh am.endment. The AcE, ag

amended, Provides in PerEinent Patt:

A violatioq "" -'it "'tablished'if ' based- on the

rocati[y of circ"'E"til!:'-it is-it'o"" chac rhe

3?::: i:i' :liii'51;:tii'iirl::i: ili[iiitlil:""bY rrembers of .a cr
subse-ciion (a) "'-'i; it'"i its 'lt6ltt lrave less

oppolI;;;; y 'ih",,.:.:il ,ti::l;i,ii "i:" ";l"t:":i!i. 
"

n;:::::?!?'il"l? t;: i;' ;;; it"'

s6 Stac;r"r"ll1" 
l]""r or disctiminaEory inEenr as Eequired bv the

Uniced SEaces Supreme Courg in Citv of Mobile v. Bo,den,446 U.S.

55(i980),iSnolongerneeded.Thecity.splanviolaEesEheAct
ifblackvoEelsinSarasoEahavelesschancechantheothervoEers
EoParEicipat,einpoliticsandEoeleccthecandidat,esoftheir
choice. The arnended Act'' however' sPecifically Provides chat

minor it ies do noE have ehe righE Eo PEoPott:::":-:"::". 
r:t"::t""'

;:.:t::""t""rion pran need not BuaranEee chat the candidate

suppor ted by minor ity voEer s is elect'ed '

The city's 312 proposal is a legislaEive plan since ic was

approved by a voEer refetendum as an "::tt -".t ,::r:I 
";::

"::r.".: '"' ;wise v' Lipscourb ' 437 u's' 535 (1e78) ' rhe

2t sarasoEa is a char qer ^mullill,,i::'"1:'?:'E:'!?:il'iil!#lil 
'

ii?;i-;i Ehi Florida const

ii;;idi- uun ri:r"",,:?:: "l: k t:tii:.ti' i':iti"ili;'i166' 
021

which r'equire

-3-



AO 72A
rerv 8/82)

SupremeCourthasheldthatabsenEsPecialcircumstances'couEt.

orderedelecEionplansshouldhaveslngle-uremberdlstricts.Er't 'r I ana lr0tt

.:":":"r:'::;"'"" , t'oz u's ' 6e0 (1e71) ' connor v' williams ' 404

U.S. 54g (1972) ' Mahan v' Howell' 410 U'S' 315 t"'l'^:'ffi

Marsha1l,424U.S.636(1975).However,theCourthasnotso
resErict,ed legislative plans' -E 91S' supta'

Underthecity.sProPosal,theboundarlesofoneofche

EhreedistricEs,DistrictOne,wouldbedrawnsothaE50.lPercenr
of the distr ict res idents were black ' Accord ing Eo 

:t:-":::.t', ".in District

One wourd be brack and 43.3 percenr of rhe tegisterg{-y9Egr-s would

One wouro t.lt

be b1ack. The remaining two districts wouLd have almosE no black

residents. The plaintiffs' plan calls for a diserict with a black

populationofTz.TPercentwith66.zPercenEofthevocingage
residenEsand56.4Percentoftheregisteredvotersblack.The
cenErar question thus becomes whe.her bracks musE be far moEe Ehan

amajoricyofrhePoPulationofadiscrictEomeeEtherequire-
menEs of the Act' The plaintiffs urge chis CourE Eo require that

DistrictOneboundariesbedrar.lnSorhataEleast55Percentof

-4-

l_



Ao 72A
o /oal

Ehe PoPulation is black'

t..

After a two-day evidentiary hearing

andfromsEudyingthelePotEssubmiEEedbybothParties,exPertB
andtheaPPlicablelaw,thlsCourtconcludesthattheclty'sPro-
posed plan meeEs the requiremenEs of the Act '

TheVocingRighEsActrequiresEhaEminoritleshavean

equaloPPortuniEyEoelecErePresentativesoftheirchoice.The
testimonyaEEheevidenEiaryhearingshowedEhatltislikelythaE
ablackcandidatewillbeelectedbyEhevoEersofthecityls

proposed DisLricr one.4 ExPerEs for boch the plaintiffs and Ehe

cicyagreedEhaEalthoughblackswouldnoEbeamajoriEyofthe
DistricE'svoEingagePoPulaEion,ablackcandidaEecouldbe

electedifblackvotettutn-outexceedsEhetuEn-ouEofwhiEe
voters in the DisErict'

According Eo Ehe

the Political scienEisE

studY conducted bY Dr' Charles S'

hired bY Ehe ciEY' the mean black

Bul1oc k ,

voEer

3t The 65 Percent figure sEems from 1'U'S' JusEice geparEment

requirement i; s"Etion s iit;;:-' i\t goulin'""c determines

thaE a sEaEe EeaPPo* i"lT;i:liif:.i;"?tt t:E"i:::?"8"",::iii!

4l

;;;;-"-ii"c" EeaPPortionmenE Pratt ^D :in-l[-1.as! 55 PercenE-

ii :i: l :;' 
";i,:ii.li:' 

:! :il "ii :' li: :: !i:" 
p;r' - 

- Tn",i:i:ltli::
arrived aE Ehe.65 PeI:"i:'iiiui" uv addiire 50% (a tr

and 5 per":li (becbu.".ri'li?i;:po'pur"iiof;. tend to be vounser

rhan che whrte.popur:!i::i ;;a'5'pLr""tti (because f ewer

minoriries r"ii!tL, .o. uoi"i"I,'6 5-p"t""''i- (U""ause minorities

voEe less otiE"- it'"tt whices) '

l? ::!: ti i . 
: iih i: ;: .li .i i:l- :ffi l :" ?i ri : 

:i:'i l:'i : :' 
:':' ik'

elecEions.

-5-



AO 72A
lRcv. 8/82)

turn-ouEinthellciEyelecEionsinwhlchblackcandidatesEsn
eras3l.5percentroE6.gpercentsBepointshigherthantheBean
lutn-ouE for Ehe white voters ' Within the boundaries of the Pto-

posedDistricE,whiteturn-outhasbeenconslstentlylandlnmosE
electionssignificanEly,lowerthanEheturn-ouEofwhitevoters
citywide.ThesEudyshowsthaEinsomeelectionsthewhitevotel
Eurn-ouEinDistrictOnePrecincEswhichweleheavilywhiEehas
beenTtollPercenEagepointslowerthanthecirywidetuln-out
forwhitevoEers.TheblackvoEertuln-gut,accordingt,oDr.
Bullock's study, exceeded Ehe Eurn-ouE of white voters within the

Disrricc in 10 0f rhe 11 municipal elecEions in which blacks ran'

InlgTo,Eheblackturn-outraEeexceededEheraEefotwhite
voEersinDistricEOneby30.SPercenEagepoinEsandinEheEwo
mosErecenEelecEions,theraEeforbtackvoEerswasz0PercenEage

pointshigher.Dr.BullockconcludedEhaEEhemeanturn-outfor
black voEers was 31'5 Petcent for the 11 elecEions in which black

candidateswereonEheballotcomParedwiEhameanraEeofL9.4
percent for whiEe voEers in the DisEricE'

NoonecanprediccfutureelecEionresulEswithcetEainty.

However,thisCourEmustdeEerminewhetherEheciry'sproposal

wouldaffotdblackvoEeEsanequaloPPortuniEyEoelectarePre-
senEaEiveofEheirchoiceasrequiredbyEheVotingRightsAct.
PoliEicalqcienEiscsmustrelyonPaEEernsfromPasEelectionsto
predictEheresulEsoffuEuteraceS.ThosePatEernsshowthaEEhe

-6-



AO 72Alo-., nrR?)

black voters of DistricE One could' and ln facE probably wouldt

elect a candidare of their choice' Dt' Bullock used Ehe 35'4 Per-

centmeanEurn.ouEofblackvoEeEsinEhefourgeneraletecElons
inwhichblackcandidaEesranandthe2,S3Tblackregistered
votersinEheDistrictEoconcludethaEablackcandidatewhoran
forEheSarasoEacitycomgrissionfromDiscrictOnewouldrecei.ve
I,0o4voEeSfromblacks.EvenusingEhehighercitywidevoter
tutn-ouE rarher Ehan the Eurn-ouc for Disrricc one 

-::t:: ":u"'.."=EUfn-9uL LeL..

BullockProjecEedrhaEEhecandidatesupportedbytheblackvoEels
wouldwin.withEhecitywideturn-outfigutes,thecandidatesuP-
portedbythewhitevoEerswouldreceiveg6svotesandEhuslose
the elecEion L^^_ _6, lly polarized

SarasoEa elections have been marked by racla

voEinE.Dr.RichardL.EngsElom'whostudiedraciallypolarized
voEing in SarasoEa, concluded uhat from 57 percent Eo 95 PeEcent

ofthewhitesvotedfotwhitecandidatesinEhellmunicipalelec-
Eions in which a black candidaEe ran' AlmosE all black voEers

cast their ballots for black candidaces. There 9,as, however' some

cross-over or whices voEing for black candidates' Dr' Bullock

f ound chat Ehe mean cross -over f or Ehe f our Bener"'r".t;::;"::.::"
f ouno Enat LttE u've!' 

^1 < -a?^anr- ^ If Zl .5 percenE

which blacks lrere on the balloE was 2l'5 PercenE'

ofEhewhitesinDisErictOneweEeEovoEeforablackcandidaEe,
Ehen 20g of.rhe votes casE by whires would Bo Eo Ehe black candi-

daEe.WhenaddedEoEhet'0O4voEesEheblackcandidatewould

-7-



receivefromblackvotets,itshowsthaEEheblackcandldaterould
win|,]LlvotesascomparedwlthEheTosvotesforchewhlteCao-
didate r"-^r^r{ttct of voEeE registraEion' As

voEer Eurn-ouE is a by-producE

EheEurn-ouEofwhitevoEeEsinDisErictOnehasbeensubsEanEial.

'y 
lower than Ehe Eutn-ou. for whire voEers citywide, the regls-

EraEion raEe for whites in Ehe DisErict has also been lower' 0n1y

slighEry moEe rhan 5g percent of che voEing age whites in DisErict

one are regisEered Eo vote while citvwti:-ii:: 
:".."::'"t':::'"::-for blacks inCne are regisEereo Eo vvLE 

.straEion raEe

gible whites had registered' The reglr

Discrict One was only slighEly higher Ehan Ehe raEe for whiEe

residents of Ehe DisErict'5

NotonlywillblackvoE'ershaveanequaloPPortuniEyEo

electaciEycofiIrlissionerfromDistrictOneunderthecity'sPro-
posed plan, blacks wilt also have a chance Eo elect a commissioner

ftom one of ehe two aE-l atse seaEs 
:::::'::';:t;1:"1":"'i:::t;

:::: :::,,.,: :iir'::r;'""::"'u"'"' supporEed bv Ehe btack comsruniEv'

TheEwocandidateswichEhemosEvot'eswillwinandEhusEhe
chance of elecEins a black candidace *"-t::,r" 

:::j":,::: ":":"
will noE PiE a black candidaEe against a white one'

2t

-8-



Ao 72A
o ,otl

Ehe candidates wiIl know what Percentage'of Ehe vote will be

needed to win, they will have to appeal to all the voEeEs' Thust

the ciEy,s proposar wirr permic Ehe black voEers Eo infr'uence Ehe

election of three of Ehe five members of the city comstission'

ThereareseveralotheradvantagesBothecity's3/2Plan

ovettheplaintiffs.5/0ptoposal.Dr.Susant.lacManus,whosEud-
ied rhe migraEion PaEEerns of the black comrrunity in SarasoEa,

noted thar rhe black population is dise^ersllt:.^'lo:":':;t": 
"t;

:: ,:'r::::,':."'r,:: "::,;." 
Di srr i ct .ne ro vote r or black candi -

dateswhorunat.Iarge.The3t2planalsoencouragesaEleastEwo
mecnbers of the city cornmission to be concerned with rhe city as a

whole raEher than just che area which chey rePresent '6

TheplainciffsdispuEethecity,stheoryEhaE,the3lzplan

wourd give bracks an equar chance Eo erect che candidate of their

choice. The plainri f f s' exPert ' Dt ' Engst'rom' concluded rhat

therewaslitElechanceablackwouldbeelecEedEorePresenE

6t Dr. MacManus concluded .:h"c mixed :l:":i:""!ii!i,.l:Jni?:-
; ; ; " i 

" 
p' : : : ! : ::t I 

'; =i 
r *l *l'"-# 1. 1# ffi ,i:^. 

": 

"?1f::*f:i' i,l:t{'"ti::'#. i "., 
;; z "*';:i}illi-ii+::'a:it"''' 

-

3?iui' "?' 
B:l ii:'i: iit*i' : ;;3,1:? l;: 

i,* lli ril:iii ;*:'?;' *"

: fii iii;l liliil 4,, *lli'i,:*1' :' i*i lii, ;l*i, ri" 
Ei :: 

.

I"iu"I 
- 

d i ' 
Et i c:'. 

^b:: ,::" orans .member o r s L-' i- i't,"- mi xed plans .

decline undel

-9-



AO 72A
(Brv.8/82)

..

District One' Dt' EngsEtomrs analysis was based on the estinaEe

thaE32.SpercentofEhetegisteredvoEersinDistricEonewere
black. However, city workers counted the nunber of black regis-

t,ered vores in the District shortly before Ehe eviden.iary hearlng

anddeEerminedEhaE43.3PeEcenEofthevoterswereblack.This
disparityweakensDr.Engstrom.sconclusion.TheCourEtherefore
finds EhaE Dr' Bullock's analysis' which was based on the actual

blackregistraEionintheDisEricEraEherthananesElElate,beEter
pred i c cs Ehe ouE come of f uEure erect t":: 

l: ,:t",.::::::" r:' severa>rgdiccs Ene ..rlrLuvu'v 
t-r- ri-,,ino€ fot sevgral

TheplaintiffschallengeDr.Bullock.sfindingsfotseveri

reasons. They argue EhaE his conclusions' 'which s'ere based on

PasEelecEionresults,areunsoundbecauseacandidatewhoEunsin
aDiscrictr6Eherthanat-largewil].focushisaEtentionand

resources in EhaE District' They also noEe thaE the whice candi-

date wi Il Iive within Ehe District one and Eheref "t"-,^::t:":::""""

:"'" .:;;""'""' tn' whiEe voEets in the Distrt::-tn":*:t:::r":"-

didaEeslivingoucsideEheDistrictdidinthePast.Theplain-
Eiffs also fear EhaE a "whiEe counEer-mobilization" might increase

whitevoEerregistraEionandwhitevoEerEUrn-outsochaEche
black candidaEe would lose' In addiEion' Ehe plaintiffs quesEion

Dr.BuIlock'sEheorybecauseiEisbasedonEhehypoEhesisEhaE

brack voEers uniformily voEe for brack candidates'

TheCourtfindsEheplaintiffsIargumenEsforrejecEingDr

Bullock's analysis unPersuasive' Dr' BulIock based his theory on

-10-



AO 72A
lRcv. 8/82)

EhesEaEisticsfromPastelectlons.HereliedsolelyonobJectlve
cticetia. The plainElffs Put forth various scenatios' such 88 Ehe

"white counter-mobilization"' which 
.are 

based on Pure sPeculatlon'

Their predicEions of increased white voEer reglstraElon and whlte

voEerEurn-outarealsonoEsupportedbytheevidence.Although
the plainuiffs challenge DE. Bullock,s assumpEion Ehat blacks voEe

for brack candidaEes, rhey argue thar raciarry porarized voEing 
's

widespreadinthecity.Theplaintiffsareessentiallyasking
thisCourEEoordercityofficialstodrawthedistricElinesso
thac rhe candidaEe supported by the black communtt'.tt,-"::'::: 

::tIlalL LrIe

winning rhe election. This may be a worthy goar but iE is noE one

mandated bY the Vocing Righcs Act'

TheplaintiffsurgethisCourtEoadoptthe5l0planso

thatT?.TPercenEofEhepopulationoft,hedistrictisblack..
TheynoEethaEtheFifEhCircuicrejectedanelecEionplanwhich
had disEricts wiEh blacks as a najoriEy of the population but noE

ofthevotingaBePoPulation.SeeKirksevv.Boardofsupervi-

:ors,554E'2d139(5thCir'1977)'InKirksev'Ehedefendants
devised an elecEion plan which split the black 

'":::':::"^::.. .deviseo an Er

Jackson,Miss.,.betweenEl,,odistricts.InrejecEingtheplan,Ehe
en banc Court noEed'
:;

Where the cohesive black voti-1q strengEh is-

r,"g'"ii"a amons di;;;;":'' :l: DEesence ot

d i sEr i:;;-.,; ir' -u"':":i:::'
noE onlv. does -l::.,'i;;;;";; joi i'i i"'-"v actuallv
but "' bare PoPur

-r1-



enhance rhq Po?sib ilicy of cont'inued oinorlty

Poiitical imPoEence'

S54F.2dst,l50,citingMoorev.LefloreCountvBoardofEduca.

@,502F.2d62L(5thClr.1974).TherelsnolndicsEionthat
the$irkseydefendantsEook6EePs,suchasadoptingslngleshot
voting,EoPrevenEminorityvotedilutlonashavethedefendanrs
in the insEanE case ' Nor e'as there evidence in Kirksey that low

whitevoEerEutn-ouEwouldgiveblacksagoodchancetoelect
Eheir candidaEe alrhough they were noE a maJority of the dis-

tricE's voEing age PoPulaEion'

TheplainciffsalsotelyonUniced.Jewish0rganizat.ionv.

Carey,430U'S'144(1980)inwhichtheSupremeCourtuphelda
sEaEe erecEion pran which creaced a district which sras 65 percenE

black.TheCourEruledehacrheVoEingRighcsActpermitstaceEo
be considered when districr lines are drawn and EhaE such consid-

eraEionisnoEunconstitutional'However'CheCourEdidnotrule
rhar che AcE requires rhac minorities be 65 percen. of Ehe popula-

tion of adistricE' Accordingly'U"it"a:""itt'Otet r:"::Eron ol c 'r-

noEPrecludeSarasoEafromadoptingthe3tzeleccionplan.Ifit
$,erenoEforchesErucEuteofchecity,splanandEhedemographics

ofDistricrone,includingthelowwhitevoEerEuln-ouE,Ehis
Courtmighta8reewithEheplainriffsEhat,blackswouldnoEhave
anequaloPPorEuniEyEoelectcheircandidaEesunlessEheywerea

majorityofEheDistricE,.svoE,ingagePoPulaEion.However,Ehe

AO 72A
(Rcv 8/82)

-12-



CourEisconvincedt,hatEheclty,sp,u?.o,"aplancomplleswithEhe
Vot, ing Righ Es AcE '

TheplaintiffsalsorequesEEhaEEhisCoutt,examlnethe

evidenEiary facEors which congress has said conEributes Eo a find-

ing rhar a vocing plan violates section 2 of the Act'7 Those

faccors - Ehe exEenE of PasE disctiminaEion' racially-polarized

voting, erection devices which enhanced Ehe opporEunity for dis-

crimination,minoriciessufferingfromtheeffecEsofdiscrigrina-
tion, minorities elected Eo public office' PoIiEical ":*ii.:::r.'
L llJll t s''

markedbyracialappealsandminoririesdeniedaccessEocandidate
slaEing-wouldaPPtyifEhisCourEwereexamininganelecE,ion
planwhichhadbeenineffect.However,E\"ciEyhasadmitted
char che erecrion pran ir used in Ehe pasE violated Ehe Act and

t,hus examining Ehese f actors would merery lead lo the conclusion

EhaE Ehe former erecrion pran denied black voters equar opporEun-

iEy Eo erecE rhe candidaEes they supporced. An analysis of the

faccors does noe aid this courE in deEermining whether Ehe pro-

posed plan meet's the tequiremenEs of Ehe Act'

TheonlyremainingissueisimplemenEaEionoft,heelecEion

plan. The cirv has filed a rePorE suesesting a 
'-'.rl 

s*:":"l.t 
r,Plan' rrrs E'-'/ 

. !-- ^1 aarirrnc would be held in

Eion plan in which ehe three districE elecEions wot

^-l -A o1 ae-

:;:"t;';;""', Ehe Ewo aE-rarse rhe rollowins vear and no elec-

--a'---

S. Rep. .No' 97-417 ' 97th Cong' r 2d Sess ' 27-?9 (1982) '
zt

-13-



AO 72A

- 14-

rionhetdEhethirdyear.ItlEherePort,thecityalsosuggests
various plans for adopting chat roEation. This court berieves the

effectsofthenewelectionplanwlllbebestdeterminedifall
citycomlnissionseatsarefiltedinoneelectionlnit'iaI1y.
Therefore,rhecityisherebyOrderedEoholde]'ecEionsforall
fiveseaEsinaccordancewiththeEermsofthisOrderinthe
springoflgs5.TheEhreedistricEseatswillhavet,hree-year
cermsandtheEt.,oaE-IarseseaEsfour-yeartelmssothatEhecom-
srission wi 1I have a 3-2-O roEarion' In f uEure elecEions' Ehe

at-IarEe E'erns will be for Ehree years '

BecauseoftheciEy,sadmissionEhaEEheformerelecEion

planviolatedEheVotingRightsAcE,thisCourEhashadt,heEask
ofdecidingwhecheranelecEionplanwhichhasnoEbeentest,ed
affordsblack.voEersanequaloPPorEunityEoParticipaEeinEhe
electoralProcessandelecEtherePresent,aEivesofcheirchoice.
Thus,EhequestionhasnoEbeenwheEherchelawhasbeenviolated

buE raEher whecher it wirr be violated. By necessity' Ehat deEet-

minationhasbeenbasedonhyPoEhesis.Therefore,EhisCourE

hereby rerains jur isdicEion of rhis maEter f or a 
'"tr.:U -::,:::""ngleDY LELorrr

afterEhelgs5citycommissionelecEionSorhaciecanreviewthe
resulE,sofEheelectionEodeEerminewheEherEheelecEionplan

complies with t'he requiremenEs of Ehe AcE '

The defendanc is Eo rePorE Ehe resulEs of the

elect,ion Eo. Ehe coult wiEh in thirty (30) days of Ehe

1985 sPring

elec E ion .



^,1'r?a

3BHfi-B .',tltia,l', :::^! .' ;''t!,[3BXi'
Plainriffs'

UNITED
MIDDLE

SARASOTA, FLORIDA' €E al''

De f end ant' s '

srArEs DISTRIcT 99!Tr

,liiitl:l,31oi'oRrDA

FILEO

p?t-
-:. Jrr: 2i 3 a p:: 'iis:-

Case No. 79-1031-Civ-T-GC
vs.

CITY OF

ORDER

The defendants are hereby Ordered Eo conducc an

in the spring of 1985 in accordance wiEh the EeEms of

Memorandum Decision entered simulEaneously herewith'

DONEANDORDEREDinChambersinTampa'Florida'

day of JanuarY' 1985'

eIecE ion

chis Court's

-At,his tr



ln Chambet s ln T.?npa, Flor 1da, thls
DONE AI{D ORDERED

Januarlr 1985'

- 15-