Request for Judicial Notice of Voting Rights Cases; for Cases Concerning Discrimination on the Basis of Race/Ethnicity; for DoJ Letters of Objection
Public Court Documents
September 5, 1989
108 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, LULAC and Houston Lawyers Association v. Attorney General of Texas Hardbacks, Briefs, and Trial Transcript. Request for Judicial Notice of Voting Rights Cases; for Cases Concerning Discrimination on the Basis of Race/Ethnicity; for DoJ Letters of Objection, 1989. d75d31a5-1b7c-f011-b4cc-7c1e52467ee8. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/804cb9df-3f5a-4224-97c8-edc37df732e4/request-for-judicial-notice-of-voting-rights-cases-for-cases-concerning-discrimination-on-the-basis-of-raceethnicity-for-doj-letters-of-objection. Accessed November 07, 2025.
Copied!
% LAW OFFICES OF
TEXAS RURAL LEGAL AID. INC.
201 NORTH ST. MARY'S ST.. SUITE 600
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205
(512) 222-2478
September 5, 1989
John D. Neil
Deputy Clerk
P. 0. Box 10708
Midland, Texas 79702
Re: LULAC et al v Mattox et al
Civil Action No. MO-88-CA-154
Dear Mr. Neil:
Notice of Cases Concerning Discrimination on the Basis of
Race/Ethnicity and 3) Request for Judicial Notice of Department of
Justice Letters of Objection. Could You please file them at your
convenience?
In advance, thank you for your help.
Sincerely yours,
Susan gall
Staff Attorney
RRR: P 362 007 810
XC: all counsel of record
Phin EE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION
LULAC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
MATTOX, et al.,
*
3%
%
oF
oF
¥
*
%
*
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LETTERS OF
OBJECTION
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court take judicial
notice of the following 1) list of letters of objection entered by
the Department of Justice (December, 1975 through May 31, 87) and
2) letters of objection that the Department of Justice has made
pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. F.R.Ev. 201:
HARRIS COUNTY
H-1 letter of March 5, 1976
H-2 letter of January 13, 1977
H-3 letter of May 1, 1978
H-4 letter of March l, 1978
H-5 letter of June 11, 1979
H-6 letter of July 18, 1979
H=-7 letter of December 27,1979
H-8 letter of January 17, 1980
D-1
D-2
(Two letters of objection concerning Bexar County are not available
letter
letter
of October 4, 1982
DALLAS COUNTY
of April 2, 1984
of February 27, 1989
| TARRANT COUNTY
of January 23, 1976
of January 16, 1978
BEXAR
letter of March 17, 1977
at this time.)
letter
letter
letter
letter
letter
letter
letter
letter
letter
letter
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
JEFFERSON COUNTY
January 23, 1976
February 25, 1977
March 5, 1980
July 23, 1980
January 15, 1980
March 12, 1982
October 20, 1983
GALVESTON COUNTY
March 10, 1976
ECTOR COUNTY
July 7, 1976
MIDLAND
August 6, 197
Respectfully submitted:
GARRETT, THOMPSON & CHANG
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
A Partnership of Professional
Corporations
William L. Garrett
Brenda Hull Thompson
8300 Douglas #800 .
Dallas, Texas 75225
(214)369-1952
LEAD COUNSEL
ROLANDO L. RIOS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
201 N. st. Mary’s #521
San Antonio, Texas 78205
(512)222-2102
SUSAN FINKELSTEIN
STAFF ATTORNEY
TEXAS RURAL LEGAL AID, INC. 201 N. St. Mary’s #600
San Antonio, Texas 78205
(512)222-2478
BY: Ar bets
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Susan Finkelstein, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice of Department of Justice Letters of Objection has been mailed via certified mail with correct postage to:
ATTORNEY
Plaintiff - Intervenors
Edward B. Cloutman, III
MULLINAX, WELLS, BAAB &
CLOUTMAN, P. C.
3301 Elm
Dallas, TX 75226-9222
214/939-9222 Fax: 214/939-9229
E. Brice Cunningham
Attorney at Law
777 S. R. L. Thornton Fwy., Suite 121 Dallas, TX 75203
214/428-3793
Julius Levonne Chambers
Sherrilyn A. Ifill
NAACP Legal Defense § Educational Fund, Inc.
99 Hudson St., 16th floor
New York, NY 10013
212/219-1900
Gabrielle K. McDonald
MATTHEWS & BRANSCOMB
301 Congress Ave., Suite 2050 Austin, TX 78701
512/320-5055
Defendants
Jim Mattox
Mary F. Keller
Renea Hicks
Javier Guajardo
Attorney General’s Office P. O. Box 12548
Austin, TX 78711
512/463-2085
Defendant-Intervenors
J. Eugene Clements
E. O'Neill
Evelyn Vv. Keys
PORTER §& CLEMENTS
700 Louisiana, Suite 3500 Houston, Tx 77002-2730
713/226-0600
REPRESENTING
Jesse Oliver
Joan Winn White
Fred Tinsley
Jesse Oliver
Joan Winn White
Fred Tinsley
Houston Lawyers Assn.
Francis Williams
Rev. William Lawson
Houston Lawyers Assn.
Francis Williams
Rev. William Lawson
Texas Legislative
Black Caucus
All Defendants
Judge Sharolyn Wood
of Harris County
Darrell Smith
Judge Sharolyn Wood Attorney at Law
of Harris County 10999 Interstate Highway 10,
Suite 905
San Antonio, TX 78230
512/641-9944
Michael J. Wood
Judge Sharolyn Wood Attorney at Law
of Harris County 440 Louisiana, Suite 200
Houston, TX 77002
713/228-5105
Mark H. Dettman
Midland County & County Attorney
District Judges P. 0. Box 2559
Midland, TX 79702
915/688-1084
Ken Oden
Travis County District Travis County Attorney
Judges P. 0. Box 1748
Austin, TX 78767
512/473-9415
David R. Richards
Travis County District Special Counsel
Judges 600 W. 7th st.
Austin, TX 78701
Robert H. Mow, Jr.
Judge Harold Entz HUGHES & LUCE
of Dallas County 2800 Momentum Place
1717 Main St.
Dallas, TX 75201
214/939-5500
each at the correct address on this 5th day of se tember, 1989.
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
wrt
3 5-u-§t ) | )
a ;
STATE: TEXAS
DATE OF
SUBDIVISION OBJECTION OBJECTION
Sate 7” S.B. No. 300--purge of currently registered voters 12-10-75
®: rr H.B. No. 1097 (1975)--redistricting of : 1-23-76
State Representative Districts in Jefferson and
Tarrant Counties
State H.B. No. 1097 (1975)--redistricting of 1-26-76
State Representative Districts in Nueces County
State vv S.B. No. 11, Section 6--requiring certain parties 1-26-76
to choose candidates by convention instead
of holding primary elections
" Tyler (Smith Cty.) - Redistricting : 2-25-76
Harris County" Precinct election judges 3-5-76 1/
Forney ISD* (Kaufman Cty.) Numbered posts; majority vote requirement 3-9-76
Texas City (Galveston Cty.) ww Numbered posts 3-10-76
Monahans (Ward Cty.) Numbered posts 3-11-76 2/
Dumas ISD* (Moore Cty.) Numbered posts; majority vote requirement : 3-12-76
Orange Grove ISD* (Jim Wells Cty.) Numbered posts 3-19-76
@:--o (Reeves Cty.) Numbered posts : 3-23-76
Chapel Hill ISD* (Smith Cty.) Majority vote requirement 3-24-76
Luling (Caldwell Cty.) ; Numbered posts 3-29-76
* Independent School District
'1/ Withdrawn 3-11-76
2/ Withdrawn 6-1-76
SUBDIVISION
Lockney 1SD* (Floyd Cty.)
Sag Antonio (Bexar Cty.)
Victoria County
Frio County
Liberty ISD* (Liberty Cty.)
Pettus 1SD* (Bee Cty.) -
Lockhart (Caldwell Cty.)
Rusk (Cherokee Cty.)
Trinity ISD* (Trinity Cty.)
Hereford ISDL* (Castro, Deaf Smith
& Parmer Ctys.)
Crockett County
Waller County
Marshall 1SD* (Harrison Cty.)
kins 1SD* (Wood Cty.)
Midland 1SD* (Midland Cty.)
* Independent School District
« T2
STATE: TEXAS
OBJECTION
Numbered posts; majority vote requirement
Thirteen annexations
Consolidation of two school districts
1973 redistricting
Numbered posts; majority vote requirement
Numbered posts
Majority vote requirement
Numbered posts
Numbered posts
Numbered posts; majority vote requirement
Redistricting
Redistricting (commissioner, justice
of the peace and voting precincts)
Majority vote requirement
Numbered posts; majority vote
Numbered posts; majority vote requirement
1/ Withdrawn 1-24-77 after change in electoral system
2/ Withdrawn 8-16-76
a/ Withdrawn 11-13-78
DATE OF
OBJECTION
3-30-76
4-2-76 1/
4-2-76 2/
4-16-76
4-19-76
5-5-76
5-11-76
5-17-76
5-21-76
5-24-76
7-7-176
7-27-76
7-29-76
8-2-76
8-6-76 3/
SUBDIVISION
Uvalde County
Woodville (Tyler Cty.)
didi ISD* (Harris Cty.) +”
South Park ISD* (Jefferson Cty.)v’
Somerset ISD* (Atascosa and
Bexar Ctys.)
Ralls. ISD* (Crosby Cty.)
Lufkin ISD* (Angelina Cty.)
Raymondville ISD* (Willacy Cty.)
Comal ISD* (Comal Cty.)
Prairie Lea ISD* (Caldwell Cty.)
Fort Bend County
Clute (Brazoria Cty.)
Caldwell County. -
Lamar CISD** (Fort Bend Cty.)
@ independent School District
r3 -
STATE: TEXAS
OBJECTION
Redistricting
Numbered posts
Special election implementing new district
Numbered posts
Numbered posts
Majority vote requirement
Numbered posts; majority vote requirement
Polling place
Numbered posts
Numbered posts; majority vote
Polling places
Majority vote requirement
Redistricting
Bilingual oral assistance program
** Consolidated Independent School District
DATE OF
OBJECTION
10-13-76 1/
11-12-76
1-13-77
2-25-77
3-17-77
322-77
3-24-77
3-25-77
4-04-77
4-11-77 2/
5.2.77
6-17-77
8-1-77
10-3-77 ¥/
1/ Section 5 objection ruled untimely in Garcia v. Uvalde County, 455 F. Supp. 101 (W.D. Tex.
1978), aff'd mem., 439 U.S. 1059 (1979)
2/ Withdrawn 3-7-78
3/ Withdrawn 11-15-77 after modifications to program procedures
- fli.
STATE: TEXAS
DATE OF
SUBDIVISION OBJECTION OBJECTION
Fort Worth ISD* (Tarrant Cty.) > Delayed implementation of single-member 1-16-78 1/
districts (Section 23-023(h), Texas
» Education Code) 5
Harris County v Polling place : 3-1-78
Waller CISD** (Waller Cty.) Election date 3-10-78
Nueces County : Redistricting 3-24-78
Southwest Texas Junior College Polling place 3-24-78
District (Uvalde and Zavala Ctys.)
Port Arthur (Jefferson Cty.) Consolidation of the Cities of Lakeview 3-24-78
and Pear Ridge with the City of Port
Arthur; redistricting of residency districts
Neches ISD* (Anderson Cty.) Numbered posts; majority vote requirement 4-7-78
Medina County Redistricting 4-14-78
Edwards County Redistricting 4-26-78
Aransas County ; Redistricting 4-28-78
Corsicana 1SD* (Navarro Cty.) Numbered posts; majority vote requirement 4-28-78
* Independent School District
** Consolidated Independent School District
1/ Partial withdrawal 2-17-78
: ) STAT...) TEXAS )
!
DATE OF SUBDIVISION : OBJECTION OBJECTION
Harris Cty. School District Election date 51-78
Brazos County . Redistricting 6-30-78 1/
Jim Wells County Redistricting 7-3-78
@® County ISD* (Ector Cty.) ‘Numbered posts; majority vote requirement " ~~ 7-7-78
Harrison County Redistricting ! 8-8-78
Terrell County Redistricting 12-27-78
Hereford ISD* (Deaf Smith Cty.) Numbered posts 1-18-79
Beeville (Bee Cty.) Single-member district plan 2-1-79
Alto ISD* (Cherokee Cty.) Numbered posts; majority vote requirement 5-11-79
Houston (Harris Cty. WW" Fourteen annexations 6-11-79 2/
Houston (Harris Cty.) Referendum election on 7 of 8 propositions 7-18-79
San Antonio (Bexar Cty.) 37 Polling place : 8-17-79 3/
Comal ISD* (Comal Cty.) Numbered posts 9-12-79
Lockhart (Caldwell Cty.) Home Rule Charter--numbered posts; staggered terms 9-14-79 4/
Taylor (Williamson Cty.) Polling i 12-3-79
¢ County Redistricting , 12-7-79 5/
Independent School District
1l/ Withdrawn 11-15-78
2/ Withdrawn 9-21-79 upon adoption of hybrid 9-5 plan
3/ Withdrawn 3-24-80
4/ Declaratory judgment denied in City of Lockhart v. United States, C.A. No. 80-0364 (D.D.C.
July 30, 1981), vacated, 460 U.S. TZ5 (1983)
0 i 0 . SG «0 + Ws Visita an OY ile aioe £07 v™ o.. £17 2093
v 76.5
3
STATE: TEXAS
DATE OF
SUBDIVISION ! OBJECTION OBJECTION
Medina County Redistricting 12-11-79 °
Port Arthur (Jefferson Cty.)o” Referendum election 12-21-79
La Porte (Harris Ces ~~ Home Rule Charter 12-27-79
@.... Arthur (Jefferson Cty.) v Referendum election & 1-15-80
Harris Cty. School District Election date 1-17-80
Comal County Redistricting 2-1-80
~ Jim Wells County Redistricting 2-1-80
Cochran County Redistricting; additional voting precincts; 2-25-30
polling places
Port Arthur (Jefferson Cty.) vr Annexation; redistricting 3-5-80
Nacogdoches ISD* (Nacogdoches Cty.) Apportionment plan (five single-member - 4-3-80
districts, two at-large)
Corpus Christi ISD* (Nueces Cty.) Apportionment plan (four single-member 4-16-80
districts, three at-large)
Port Arthur (Jefferson eve Referendum election : 7-23-8C
Cleveland ISD* (Liberty Cty.) Numbered posts 8-8-80
» Jim Wells County Redistricting 8-12-80
*Independent School District
Withdrawn 9-28-81
|
=
ha
Withdrawn 9-22-80 IN
~
Declaratory judgment denied in City of Port Arthur v. United States, 517 F. Supp. 987 [*
%)
h
a
(D.D.C. 1981), aff'd, 459 U.S. T59 (19BZ)
SUBDIVISION
Victoria (Victoria Cty.)
® County
West Orange-Cove Consolidated ISD**
(Orange Cty.)
Liberty 1SD* (Liberty County)
Burleson Cty. Hospital District
(Burleson Cty.)
Uvalde County
State oh
State oF
Uvalde County
Port Arthur (Jefferson Cty.) ow’
@:1-ton ISD* (Brazoria Cty.) -
* Independent School District
)
ww 17 ie
STATE: TEXAS
OBJECTION
Four annexations
Polling place
\
Numbered posts; majority vote requirement
Numbered posts
Polling place
Redistricting
Legislative Redistricting Board Plan No. 1l--
Senate Redistricting
Legislative Redistricting Board Plan No. 3--
House Redistricting
S.B. No. 1 (1981)--Congressional redistricting
Redistricting
Referendum election--consolidation of City of
Port Arthur and Town of Griffing Park;
method of election
Numbered posts; majority vote requirement
**Consolidated Independent School District
1l/ Withdrawn 3-13-81 upon change in electoral system
DATE OF
OBJECTION
9-3-80
11-4-80
2-9-81
3-16-81
6-5-81
1-22-82
1-25-82
1-29-82
2-18-82
3-12-82
3-15-82
SUBDIVISION
Harris Cty. School District vd
Pleasanton (Atascosa Cty.)
Stockdale ISD* (Wilson Cty.)
Jefferson County (Beaumont _/
ISD, South Park ISD)
Pewitt CISD** (Cass, Morris, and
Titus Ctys.)
Wilmer-Hutchins ISD (Dallas
Cty.)
El Paso County (El Paso ISD)
Rusk ISD* (Cherokee Cty.)
Liberty-Eylau ISD* (Bowie Cty.)
Dawson County
* Independent School District
C
a
g
?
“TB =
STATE: TEXAS
OBJECTION
Election date
Numbered positions
Implementation of numbered positions for the
election of board members
Dissolution of the Beaumont Independent School
District; the creation of a common school
district and its attachment to the South
Park Independent School District
Imposition of numbered positions
Polling place; absentee voting location changes
Implementation schedule for the election of
board members
Utilization of numbered positions for the
election of school board members
Utilization of the majority vote requirement for
the election of members
Bilingual election procedures
**Consolidated Independent School District
OBJECT?
10-4-3
10-14"
8-19-.
10-20-7
1-18-°
2-26-!
8-6-
) )- 19 - gore
STATE: TEXAS
DATE OF
SUBDIVISION OBJECTION OBJECTION
El Campo (Wharton Cty.) 1975 imposition of numbered positions and a majority 11-8-85
vote requirement, and the 1985 change to the
election of four councilmembers by single-member
J districts and three at large with a new staggering
method
Lynn County : Redistricting (justice of the peace and constable 11-18-85
precincts); reduction in the number of justices and
constables from five to two
Terrell County Reduction in number of justices of the peace from four 1-13-86
| to one and the resulting at-large method of election
Plainview ISD* (Hale Cty.) Method of election and districting plan | 4-10-86
El Campo (Wharton Cty.) Two districting plans 7-18-86
Trinity Valley Community College Redistricting plan 10-14-86
District (Anderson, Henderson,
Hunt, Kaufman and Van Zandt Ctys.)
Wharton ISD* (Wharton Cty.) Majority vote requirement | 12-29-86
* Independent School District
P Department of Justice ®
dlushington, D.C. 20530
«
c
a
so
r
-
’
o
oh
eo
e
g
8,
%
00
.
o
r
I>
J
I
o
w
o
d
C
O
~J
oO
J
e
r
e
v
f
o
d
Mr. Joe Resweber :
County Attorney : iy
Office of the County Attorney
Harris County Courthouse
Houston, Texas 77002
>
oY
a
T
.
P
R
Y
R
=
34
c
h
e
s
t
Dear Mr. Resweber:
This is in reference to the 1973, 1974 and 1975 changes in the method of selecting precinct election Judges in Harris County, submitted to the Attorney
General pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended. Your submission was received on
January 5, 1976.
The Attorney Gen:ral does not interpose any
"objection to the 1973 and 1974 changes. However, we feel a responsibility to point out that Section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act expressly provides that the failure of the Attorney General to object does not bar any
subsequent judicial action to enjoin the enforcement of such changes.
‘After careful consideration of the submitted
changes, of supporting information and of comments
from interested parties, we are unable to conclude, as
we must under the Voting Rights Act, that. the December 8, 1975 Commissioners' Court Order, as amended by the
December 29, 1975 Order has not had and will not have a racially discriminatory purpose or effect. In the
absence of information indicating that minorities are
fairly represented among the precinct polling staff we
are unable to conclude that the qualification that "the
racial make-up of the precinct polling staff will not . .
be affected" will not discriminatorily limit the .opportun-.
ities of minorities to serve as Precinct polling staff.
I must, therefore, on behalf of the Attorney General,
wo
ot
t
.
e
.
Ta
ed
BT
L
y
e
=
J
IT
E
IT
ITTY
a
t
.
-
g
m
,
-
a
l
t
oo
ca
lg
on
le
.
pr
- . 3 Ld *
>
ol interpose an objection to this Order. 7 t
AX DOJ Letter of Objection - Harris Co. LV; - Te 0 out
No. H-1 (Mar.5, 1976)
Of course, as Provided by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, you have the right to seek a declaratory Judgment from the District Court for the District of Columbia that these changes neither have the purpose
Sincerely,
"4 Sl wd :
\. mF one Cen #J. "Stanley Pp ttinger al . Assistant Attornay General ~ Civil Rights’Division
>
om
~—
ES ———_
: JSP: IPT : JKT: wma s ver
:
|
DJ 166-012-3
JAN 14 157
X9082, 924229245
Mr, Joel B. Coolidge, President
Interin Board of Trustees
bear iy, Coolidge: :
This jg in reference to the January 13, 1977,
i
Spaciagl e€lectio) Implement 1, 8d new JOVarnmenta) boqy,
i
the Viestheiney Independe), School District of Warrjs
Couaty, Texas, Subnitteg yo the Attorney General
i
LQursuant to Seation of the Voting lights Act of 196s,
a3 anncidadg, Your Submission was TaéCeiveq gp Decenbey 17,
1u7¢6. In Accordance With your Toguest expeditag con-
thio vrocedury] Guldelineg for the aduinistratiep of
:
Section j (26 C.F. Rg. Section 51.22),
Potential for Binority nelbaerg jn the affectag area to
Achioyy adequate YOPresentatiop in 8chool affairs under
gid DOJ Letter of Objection - Harris Co,
No.H-2 (Jan. 13, 1977)
|
Ri < Ra
y bo y
school desegregation. The materials which accompany goa your subnission do not refute such allegations, In we He
addition it anpears that minority residents in the proposed westheimer district will have’ no realistic opportuniv,; to achiovo the sort of ropresentation in the proposed westheluer Independent School District - that they now enjoy in the Houston Indepandent School Digtrict, Finally, minority parents in the Houston Indepandent Selhiool District whoge children, in order to enjoy the benefits of a desegreaataed education, attend schools located in what would bo the Wasthocimer Indevnenaent School District would be dis franchised with redpelt to all rnatters ralating to the c¢ducation of tiedlr children.
For the above reasona, tihereforo, wae arc unable vy to conclude, as wo must under the Voting Rights Act, PER
that the submitting authority has met its burden or pbb siiowine that the Proposed change does not hava the purpose ana will not have the affect of discriminating on account of race or mambership in a language mdnority groups, Consequently, I must on behalf of the Attormey Ganaral interpose an objection to the January 1%, Jo77, 2racial election luplomenting 4 New governmental body, the Westheimer Independent School District.
ihe effect of tihig objection is to make the election legally Wieniorceuble, Of course, the Voting Rights Act provides that a declaratory Judgment that this cianve deas not have the pProscribaqd purpose or effect may We gewohi in the Unitod States District Court for the istrict of Colunbia notwitnstanding this objcction.
Sincerely,
J. Stanley Pottinger al PEE Tne Assistant Attorney General =. ir, Civil Rights Civision :
“
1 -
r
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
DJ 166=-012=-3
A3351 my 1 1978
We Richard fi. Sedaaley, LEgqULTe
v0 Pennin Yoil ding
Suite 1301
Houston, axas 77483:
vials io in reference to tie cholae of @laction dats ror the clasctions of tha Cotaity Gtheol 'ravteve of larrds REILLY, ORES, Ll ve SLaBYgLS Lit slecihion vuhlicdey and in
vOlling places reooultiag from the choice of election dats, \ guiittes to tha SLEOIDeY flenernl parsusat Lo Section 0 oof Cal Vullng fdgars oot oF 1963, as amcudad. ‘ar vuisinsion
Wak GOs lave on Vabruary $4, 1976.
¥rior vo 19377, ele tions for the County School Trustees ton the fired daturday of Gotober of Gid=-nwaiere
YOEBra, nlx wasn whey ErenTdon 3 “ate for 1% of the 49 solocl cletrives within lsrrls veanty, and jednt EAI fo WaT
Glad wit those 1s gimiyions, A8 D regult of the Yniforn
WluCiion Jat oo votobor dale was no longer
wvailable, Por the haw Jaleo tas County Scho) frustoos
reno tue third Sstardsy io JEnuary of even-numbored years.
Vu Lave carefully considersd (he Lado vindtien vou bave Crovided with respect to this cholon of clection date and
tue daformnation provided ny other Interested partioz. In AA BRAlyaie we Have Daen vided Ly relevant judicial wodaiond, 7 wndel we feel hound. Soo YOY Vo Unjted viata,
33 Warde Lie $1274), ;
@ Lm 90 mia vs
DOJ Letter of Objection - Harris Co.
No. H-3 (May 1,1978)
t : #
- Dw
According to the information provided by you the
January election date was chosen by 9 of the 20 school districts
in Harris County, more than any other date. However, much less
than 45 percent of the voting age population or of the regis-
tered voters of Harris County resides in these 9 school
districts. It further appears from the data you have presented
that an equally large proportion of the county's voting age
population and registered voters reside in a single district,
the Houston Independent School District, whose elections will
. be held in November. The Houston district, moreover, appears
. to contain a substantial majority of the county's black and
Mexican American voters and potential voters. In addition,
the district that would appear to have the next greatest
number of minority voters or potential voters, the North
Forest Independent School District, also will not be holding
January elections.
Thus, one result of the choice of the January date is
that voters residing in the school districts, all predominantly
white Anglo, that use the January election date will have the
added incentive of participating in two elections held jointly,
while other voters, including virtually all of the minority
voters, will only have the County School Trustee election to
attract them. In addition, in districts with joint elections
all regular school district polling places will be in use,
while in other districts a reduced number of polling places
will be used. Thus in the January 1978 election there were
only 10 polling places within the vast Houston Independent
School District while during its last school district election,
the Houston Independent School District used 168 polling places.
Finally, the disadvantage to minority voters and
potential voters within Harris County does not appear to be
counteracted by publicity with respect to the County School
. Trustee elections. Publicity appears to be limited primarily
- to legal notices and posting, and oral publicity in the
Spanish language is not provided, despite the substantial
Mexican American population affected.
: Under Section 5 the burden is on the jurisdiction
Proposing a voting change to show that the new practice or
procedure is not discriminatory in purpose or effect. The
- burden of proof is the same when a submission is made to the
- Attorney General as it would be in a suit for a declaratory
judgment wnder Section 5 brought in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia. See Georgia v. United
" States, 411 U.S. 526 (1973). The Procedures for the Adminis-
tration of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
C.P.R. 51.19, state:
'
|
!
'
|
1
i
H
i
IE hie evidences as to the purposs or effect of the
change 1a conflicting, and tha Attorney Caneral is
wiralile to resolve tae conflict within the 60~day
period, he shall, consistent with the akove-described
aurden of proof applicable in the district cours,
Aer un objection. .
.
=. of
iNet ame
Liter have clrowmastances, we ane uhable to concluda,
GU We nuit wbder the Vetdng Rights Sot, that he ele
Ltr, Ge - TT Yau ie Com tes . ATS 4 he LP ho vio g's ” 5. - Je lv GOGH, IF 0 po, OA teil Ly wedloul «USB Len GF Huy 1a )
"wl Whe Shaner $n eleoldon publicity and dn polling places
cesulelnyg from tha clsdee of election datz da not nave the
uarpose ant will pod beve Lhe effect of denying or alyidaglin
che rdagae Loe vote on anervaut of races, color, or rvinership in
rodunovage wiioviey or
-e
J . 3
ALCINGY fouieral, Xoaust dntersova an ofjecetion wo
cractlees or procedures with respect to voting,
ction
Cray
ncerUingly, on behalf of Lhe
Liven
Woocoura, as provdidad by gaction Sof oho REVS SH
J
RL ha 3 Fp a
GLUE at, IO IR
0
vo the rignt to seed o declurasory Yudehie: rAM
TOW the Uailted States Nistrict court for tha pistyriaet of
vGluabla that thee changes do sot Leave the uuriooe ani will
f venydug or abridging the riqgic ty voi
ok ave Ler effcot ©
Ln aoeocunt of race, color,
LEU. La S20 dai, the Troceduren
ETA Wr ER IE Ct ON A A)
: tv
:
Dab P00 LO Yuacunat
+
Cr wondarrsnig dn a lancuaane ninerd
2 for the Afwisictration of
VO dh pO Gad NEC Wa JRE TE TRL
ne SLtorney Soneral to recensidor tals
mid A ~ reds yn y -l 0 ee “nn -e - Pa. Tin > . : - = - J We. Te - . Yo Ghgrubion. Lawovew, until the obiaecticn 43 vitadrowm er ML
‘ Vol RR LE $l. . BT ST rE ren ad, a Fr" ay Ey Fodad 1s y - ‘e EE ATER HRW Fuca i 0 aaantrich of on Imsia TE owtainad ys In
5 tig tel of Btw ETE SE
iy - a RT LEN p= oA xr vr Va 28 ww, fo Puma dl Lea CNGLCY of vlagtion date
i 7 cata Tid Bh LEC A le veh entlen poblicley and in polling p
S08 § ATA Tie
. We ed ame o.oo p08
WRLC OHI LY
id
"
1. -, "ey
Pde WL eI Vlad (EE TP xy
.
3
b
s
% Q La
t
Ie
ia
Glreerely,
{* HY
; 1 )
Vim?
we i
Av
©!
. NN Te "ree ’ ’ 143 ATH RE | Lote 4 a | fart
PLE A
333.06
11 Bachts rivision
Ly Lug Abtornny cCoenaral i bs ooehe
and tie
logrlyl,
Mr. Joe Resweber
darris County Atuorne cy
Harris Councy Courthouses
~IMatonr, raxas ITV
bE Dear lr. Reswaber;
A,
This is x reference to rhe chanjes in election 7 rrecliiote ai Cliiug places Cor ilarris County, Texas, Lone 3uimitted to 4 Attoruevy General pursuant to Section. J of the Voting Riehis Act of 1943, as ame.idod, Your EEE sabilasdon was comnlel 4 on Janmavy 10, 3575, upon our vacelnl of Jour Jawuary 2/7, WG, letter © “go rvarding dupnleratal inforwalk ion. :
We have siven careful cons ideration to these 2AANEas and a the supporting materials YOM have pro- vidad, as well as to cosments from laterestad vartics and relevant dewopraphic data, Lxeeont as indicated Lalow, the A tornoy Ceneral Joes not Interoose any ou]uctions Ce tiie chiangoy Iw slection Precincts and culitres 1a polling blaces under. submission, ilowever, Wi foal a responaibiliiy £0 point out that fection 5 of tae Yori ne denks Act QaLresaly nroviides that Lac caiiure of the AtLoriey General to ohjecet wos not Lar diy suusaquent judicial action tu 2ujoin the oenforce- went of $veh CHAN; es,
resulting frou tha consolidation of Precincts Noa. 55 and 340 we are wiable to rozaciy a like conclusion. Gur analysis ravoals thar tla SL Avenue School, the polling Place for. che ewly cons olidated precinct. 19 located! Herve il ilas fron cho heavy conan TrAlion of wlacrhi:y Goud atlon Ln old Preeinet 244, ther throne
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With respect to thn caange of polling place |
DOJ Letter of Objection - Harris C.
No. H-4 (Mar.l, 1978)
mersons, many of whom are elderly, will have to cross
the Katy Freeway wilcut lacks a pedestrian overpass and
that public transportation to the &th Avenue School is
not avallable. Thus, it appears that tha §th Avenue
School is significantly less convenient for the minority
population in old Precinct 340 than was the prior polling
place at the West Zug Civic Club. In addition, it appears
that confusion has resulted from the shift of the polling
place without adequate notice or a public heariag.
Lieder thease circumstances, the Attorney General
ceanot conclude, as he mast under Sectlon 5, that this
change in polling place location does not have the effect
of discriminating on account of race, color, or membership
in a lanpuage minority group insofar as che minority
voters in old Precinet 340 are concerned. Accordinrly,
I must, on behalf of the Attorney General, interposc an
objection to this polling place change.
1¥, nowever, you have new luformation iadicating
this polling place change does not have a discriminatory
purpose or effect, you may request us to reconsider this
dotermination., See 23 C.P.R. Section 51.21,.51,23 .and
21.26. In addition, Section 5 permits Harris County to
seal: a daclaratory judgment from the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia thet this
polling place chanpe does not have the purpose and will
nct have the cffect of denying or abridging the right
to vote on account of race, color, or membership in 2
lacpuage minority proup. However, until the objection
1s withdrawn or such a declaratory judgment obtained,
tin lepal effect of this objection Ls to male this
change in polling place legally unenforceable.
Sincerely,
James P. Turner :
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
—
a
—
—
a
—
—
—
R
l
t
e
.
Wi
gg
s
i
T
BSD:DHH:rjs
DJ 466-012-3
SF S745 JUN 11 19/9
Cl490-92; C15%8-11
Kr. Eobert M. Collis, Jr.
City Attorney
Cicy ©f Loustoa
Losal Department
Fout Cffioe ox 15€2
BOULtOD, Yexas JIL0L
Dear x. Collis,
This is In reference to tle ainnerbtic=s an. digar nara tions by tae City of icuston, Yess, schrivea to the Jitorncy General pursumit to Sectica % of the Voting dghts act cf 199i, &3 arundel. Your schuission was corr leted ©n April 1. 12375. ‘Atnouch wa have attergted to make eur Ceterrinesio: L234 reiject Lo thie submission on ec expecitel besln, wa hove boon wnable to res;ond witli) this tins,
%0o determine that a chance in the corpesitier of a. city's jopulation ¥Yesulting from Runexatless Ace? nol Lave the @ffcat of abridying the right to vete on aceoant of races, color, or maderszhip in a lanyuaye RLLOrity grew; tha Attoraey General must be satisfied either that the leroantace of wunmbare of 8 racial or lencoage winorisy Iva In the ¢ity nas not bear arprecickily reduced, that voting 18 not polariged betwees racial Or iahgnasn ¢rouss, Cr that, wevertheless, the ®lty’'s elecotoral syscer will afford misority grours “‘xerrosertatio: Yeasanally egulva~ dent to thelr political strength 4n the salaryed euriunity, * Cicy ©f Xichaoni ve United btares, 423 U.S. 35%, 37¢ (137%).
«8
Be 5 ime sons allo ARES : r Sor reny . . ’
fie” gi = DOJ Letter of Objection - Harris
PT RET PST I Em AN AE ie ah © TEE . No. H-=> (June 11. 1979)
Co.
vs 5
a ¢
% .
4 . A»
.
-“ 3 -
; vo apply this legal standerc to this submission we
aavp carefully exsrined the inforasticn you hove provided
wit} respuet te this submission, information pruvidec by
> other lntersgytel persons, information in our ilss with
res ear to Fy submissions Ly the City of louvaton, anc
information in the record in Greater Boustor Civic Couccll V.
ann, 640 ¥. Burp. €96 (S.D. ¥en. 1977) pending oa appeal,
es
oo. 77-3053 (Sth cir.).
Aconrding te the statistics you have previded, the
gunritte: annexations have projorticoally reduced tne Llack
yopalation din the City of Reuston fram 2{.0 perceit to <4.C
parcent, & reduction of l.2 porceatage joints, amd Lave ;
rectuced the Mexican American popalation from 14.9 percoat #
te 13.5 percent, a reducticn ©f €.3 perceastaga polate.
based on ie relevant court decisions and Lu view of tha
relevant ohraractaristics of the City of kuvuston., we fing
suc: reductions to Le legally significent. $ce City of
sichmont Vv. Orited States, 442 V.S. at 3Ce-Tur CIL7 EF
Fotershurg vw. uulted states, 354 T. Sudb, 162), 1928-29
(U0. Co 1972), aftiTomud, 410 T.5. 962 (1573): City of
notes ve Undeed States, Code Boo 77-0757 (L.p2.CT 1377),
Cn wpb
iis epinios at ¢3-6s.
Our analysis ef the stztistics you have provided
wits respect to the votias patterns of differont groups
in tls Saty of louston and of precinct election returcs
(or city electiung revoals the fregusnl OUCUIIINCS of
polarized voting between blacks and whitua anc batwsen
voxican Arericans and whites. For example, in the 1¥77
election for ths ecuncil josition for majority black |
District ©, 64.0 peroent of the white votars but only 1l.6;
percent of tho black vcters woted for tha whito ixcwhent, :-
Forzer ¥Yord, instead of for ona of his thrws black caallengoxas
soe CAty of Richmond ve toited Bhlatewr 37¢ ¥. Susp. 1344, L343,
1356 (D.b.Ce 137d), Fevarscd on other grounds, 422 C.5. 353
(1575); City of Fetergburg, 351 F. Supp. at 102%-4i€ city of
Roxe, sli; opinion at $-13, 64-6¢€.
Altrough approximately two of every sight residents
of the City of houston are black, and approcixately ene of
every eight residents is o Haxican~hzericar. only one black,
and po Lexicaa-drerican, has over sexved on he eiydt-mesler
City Council undar the present electoral systos.
EK” . 5
'
'
|
)
|
|
|
'
-3 =
Finally, a eonhsidaraticn of alactions {n etre Civy of Houstek, of the rasoonsivaness of tha City to tia concerns and needs of blacka and Hexican acvsricars, an’ “ff tie vieww blacks ané Hexican Asericars ana thalr rerrosentativel, leads to the osucluglon thal tha Fresant electoral gystex, wader whlch all mesbers of the Cig Council are elected iw eitywidy elections, will ro- afford lacks and Mexican Avericons "represerntaticn FORSCTANLY euivalest to their political stransth ir the erlaraad cortunlty,® City of Richmond, ¢22 U.6. at 378. Bae Clty of Fetersbury, IST Fi fu jo at 1025-27, city of ko, @iip cranlon at 7-9, 4-66.
Thus mone ©f the throes conclusions that would Suiiort a detarrdnation that the annexationa co pot Lavy ¢ Ciscriminatory ef”sct can Le reached. I am uwnanle tc cenTluag, therefore, as 1 emt vader the Votline eicnis Ct, that the sulrittaed esnsxations vill not have the «ffeet of avridcine the right to vols on actewt ef race, <¢lor, or macbershlp in a languaae rincrity group.
levertheloss, the two deanrexatinne (Ordinance Led, T8-2¢71 and 17-2127) and one annexation (Ordinance HO. 77-2482) do not involve populated areas, and two Annexations involve ercas with sut:gtaatial sinority populations (Orcinance hoe 17-2354 mand 78-4350), wit: Fegjeat to the two deanncistions and to those thiroe annoxn- tiene theo Attorney Gereral, accordingly, Goes not interrosa any objegticn. (Yo feoi & responeiuility to point out, bowyver, that Section 5 of the Voting idohts Act eXProsxly LTOVICHS tat the fallure of the ShEornay Cancral to abjwct cous nO kar any subsejuant judicial ae anfarcemant of such changes.) :
With respect to the voting chanjes occasional Ly the servadndny fourteen annexrations (Ordinance sox. 17-16cz, 17-43%), 77-2355, 77-2356, 17-2347, 75-2378, 78-2351, TE~2382, 78-235), Te-2324, Ta-2385%, Te-23:6, 76-2397, and 78~234L), kocause of the conclusion we have reached, 1 £43l, on bhelialf of the Se rornay Coanral. fnterposa an oi.dection pursuant to section .
te enjoin
)
.
>.
.
Gm Lage er ww wn a ae,
,
i
:
- ff -
Should the City of houston adopt ar elootoral systen Li. which Llacls end koxican Awericans are afforde. *renre- sentation reascaal:ly ezuivalent to thelr political strength Te in the enlargqd oauunity® the Attorney Geroral will consider withdrawal of is objection, Cur analysis indicates that - one MUCH SYstel would include tam electicr 0f somo rardbars
of tha City Council frow single-menber districts, Af the cistricts are fairly drove and Lf the povler of discrints is sufficleat to anshle Lot: klacks anc iexicen Maricens to elect candidates of their choices. See City of richwon:d, 412 U.B. st 370-73; City of Futersbury, 350 ¥. Bupp. at 1027, 1031: City of kore, »LIp opinion at €o-70.
1 wish to stress that this dster=ination velatew IL ee only to ths woting Changes occasion Evy tha annexaticus iu
question. The objection to the im lenentation of each
chéiies® doss not affect the validity of the asnexationa
therrelven,
Of course, as providsd by Sacticn & of the Voting Rights Act, you have tiie right to seck a declaratory
iwdgrent frow the Tniteld sSistes istrict Court for the Listrict of Celumi:ia that tha changes affecting voting Xedulting fron thease sanexstions have relther the purpose
ror will hava tha effect of denying or ahridcins the riche
toc vote oa eocdunt of races, color, or mesberalils An a langurye minority group. Nowever, until < + such a Jadge
went is oltained frou the District of Colusbia Court, the sffoct of thc objection by the Attorney Ceneral is to rake the woting changes pinion, fren these annexations legally _-
wnenicrceakla, : $i
gincerely, %
orew §. bays IX
Assistant 2Attoraey Guneral
Civil Eiclits Sivision
JUL 1g 1979
Xr. Robert M. Collie, Jr.
City Attorney
City of iiouston
Leal Uepartoent
Post Uffice tox 1562
iiouaten, Texas 77001
Dear kr. Collie: | ~
Tnis is in reference to the application of Bection 5 of the Voting dghts Act of 1965, as awended, to the City of liouston.
The following matters are before us:
(1) A request for reconsideration by the City of liouston of the June 11, 1979 objection pursuant to Section 5 to the voting changes
. occasioned by fourteen aumnexations to tho City of Liouston. This request, set forth in your letter of June 13, 1979, was received on June 16, 1979,
(2) A request that the Attorney General “lide {the Jure 11, 1979] objection, or otherwise modify, suspend, or clarify it, so that it does not extend to the enforcerent of voting charjes (i.e., the annexations) ror the limited Pursoses proposed to be included on the August 11 ballot." This request, set Jorth in your letter of July 3, 1979, was received on tnat date, : 0
(3) The sudbuwission pursuant to Section 5 of a City Charter amendment election to be conducted on August 11, 1573, This submission was received on July 9, 1979 and auenced and supplewented on July 10, 13, and 17, 1379,
“= DOJ Letter of Objection- Harris Co. ™ | No. H-g (July 18, 1979)
|
eo 2 =
(4) The submission pursuant to Section 5 of
the eight propositions that are to be the subject
of the Aujust 1ll election. This submission was
received on July 9, 1979 and suended and supplemented
on July 10, 13, and 17, 1Y73.
To the extent possible we have, as you requested,
expedited our consideration of these matters.
With respect to the reconsideration request, we
have carerully comsidered the infermation and legal
arjuments presented in your letter, and for the reasons
set out in my letter of June 11, 1979, on behalf of the
Attorney General, I decline to withdraw the objection
to the voting changes occasioned by the fourteen
annexations.
With respect to the conduct of elections by the
City of douston while the objection remains outstanding,
I should clarify the impact of our objection as it
affects the referendum you propose to hold on Proposition 3.
It is our view that Section 5 should not serve to prevent
actions by tne City that would be likely to provide a
basls for curing the dilutive aspects of the annexation
if those actions are taken consistent with state law and
are not otherwise inconsistent with the purposes of the
Voting Rizhts Act. Proposition 3 appears to be desi;ned
as an attempt to remedy the objection interposed on
June ll, 1979, by defining a new method of election in
the City as ultinately expanded, and on the basis of
inforration presently available to us it appears that
such a method of election, if adopted, nay directly or
inairectly lead to a withdrawal of the objection. In
this light, and under the totality of the circumstances,
on behalf of the Attorney Ceneral I do not object to
the conduct of tine August ll, 1979, referenduwa on
Proposition 3 as proposed.
liowever, the sare conclusion cannot be reached
with respect to the nature of the referendunn you propose
to conduct on the remaining propositions. Those
- J a
Propositions do-not have the potential for remedying the objection interposed on June 11, 1979, and under the circunstances the referendum as DProposed oi Propositions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and § would be inconsistent with the purposes of the Voting Rights Act while tho June 11, 1979, objection remains outstanding. Accordingly, our objection cannot be modified or otherwise licuted, suspenced or clarified to allow the referendua on those Propositions to proceed as proposed, and on behalf of the Attoruey General I rust object to tire referendum 48 proposed oan Propositions 1:22, 4,.5,0 0, 2:and §.
With respect to the submission under Section 5 of the eight Propositions themselves, review under Section 5 is only permitted wien a coupleted enactient is submitted to the Attorney General or enactuient coxplete in all respects except Lor the holding of a required referendua. 2% C.F.1. 31.7. Because of the cbjections interposed above to the holding of referenda oa projpusitions l,.2, and 4 through &, this standard of finality is not satisfied and accordingly, on behalf of the ALtoriley General, I will make no Geterwination at this tipe.
By the same standard, however, Proposition No. 3 is ripe for review at this tice. Proposition 3 creates a new electoral system for the City Council of the City of Houston. Tie present system of nine Council nesbers (Including the iiayor) elected at large is renlaced Ly a 878ten under wilch nine (and once a certain population level 1s reached, clever) wenbers will be elected fron single-uecber districts ang 81k embers (Lucluuing the Hayor) will be elected at large. Althourh it appears that this change is of the kind that could weet the preclearance standards of Section 5, we have not yet been able to coijplete our review of this proposition in the tiwe available to us so far. liowever, we will continue to expedite this review insofar as the circumstances allow aud I will notify you of my decision on behalf of the Attorucy General as soon ag possible,
wi lie
It is our understanding that the City Charter nay be auended only once in a two-year period, anc thus our review included a consideration of whether our decision to preciear only the potentially armeliorative portion of the referendwa for the expanded City wigsat affect the ability of the City to subsequently present the remaining issues to the electorate. Altliough it is our belief tnat at this time only the issue that could lead to a withdrawal of the objection can be placed before the electorate for referendum a8 was proposed, it is our view that if the resolution of that issue results in a withdrawal of the objection the City should not de precluded, notwitnstanding the Charter provision, from subsequently Presenting the remaining issues to tae electorate. Thus, if the objection is withdrawn our etaff 1s williry to support reasonable steps by the
City to achiecve this result, including any orders the City believes necessary to obtain in federal court.
With respect to the decision made on behalf of the Attorney General not to interpose an objection to the holding of a referendum on Proposition 3, as authorized. by Section 5, the Attorney Cencral reserves the riint to TeexXaiuine this change if additional inforuiation that would otherwise rejuire an objection coues to his attention during the remainder of the sixty-day period. In addition, we feel a responsibility to point out that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act expressly provides that the failurc of the Attorney General to object docs not bar auy subsequent judicial action to enjoin the enforceuent of such change.
With respect to the objections to the votin changes resulting from the fourtcen annexations and to the holdin of referenda on Propositions 1, 2, anc 4 throuzh 8, you have tle right, as provided by Section 3. to seek a declaratory judyment frown the United States Listrict Court for the District of Colwihia that ti.cse changes do not have the purpose and will not have the effect of deaying or abridging the rizint to vote on
- § =
’
account of race, color, or membership in a language
minority group. In addition, our aduinistrative
procedures, 28 C.F.R. 51.21(b) and (c), 51.23, and
51.24, perwlt you to request the Attorney General to
reconsider these objections. rHowever, until the
objections are withdrawn or the judgment from the
District of Coluszvia Court is obtained, the effect
of the objections by the Attorney General is to make
these voting changes legally unenforceable.
Because the Court in the consolidated cases of
Leroy v. City of Houston and United States v. Houston,
CA. No. T6-1i=217% and 78-d-2407 (5.0. Llexas), las
indicated a desire to hear any motions later this
week insofar 2s the recent submissions are involved,
I would appreciate it if you will inforu us irumcdiately
of the manner in which the City intends to couply with
the decisions set out above. I an taiking the liberty of
providing copies of this letter to the Court and to
counsel for the private plaintiifs.
Sincerely,
Drew S. Days III
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
cc: Honorable Gabrielle XK. Mcbonald
L. A. Greene, Jr., Esquire
)
!
!
!
i
|
CS
ey
b
g
Inez ¥. Askins, Beg,
fC . City Attorney
Pose Office Pox 1115
L¥ Yorte, Texas TIZEN1
a
u
d
Dear X:. AsXins:
This ie in reference to the revisions of the Pome Fule Charter for the City of I.a Forte, tarris county, Teras.
with a ma jority-vote rrTulrerent fror. four BiLgle-waptayr C¢istricts and three desionatea st-larce yonts, an? the EiTortiomaent plan for tae four Bincle-ten).or districte,
tux Veting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, Your sutninsion of the charter rovizions was cortleted on Novoml.er 1, 1279, an: your subnicsion of the apportionment Plas waz received
Uniler Section 5, the City ©f La Porte bas the burden of proving that tha pro.osad electara) Syetan doas net repreecent
& Yetrogrescion 4n the rosition of either the klack or Lranigh-
lzngnace residents of the city, and tat it does not transorege
constitutional 1irits with resrect to either fTroup. See Roer w,
hited States, 425 U.8. 150 (1376). Fae also 28 C.p.x. 51.19.
Under White w., Peaster, 412 U.S. 7155, yes (1%7)), to prove Sl
ne constitationality of its systen tie city must prove ehat oe
ti.c &lactoral S87sten is equally oven to black, frarieh-larqvags
and white voters, and that each group has a fair OFportunity to elect candidates of its eholce.
Ye have given careful consldarstior to tre inforve- tion you lave Frovided as woll as to comments anda information
Frovided bv otNar interested rartien. 1) aldition to other
of a nunixer or black canlidacies, nc black person has CV r won
¢loction to the La Porte runicinzl wovsrninc rody. We have taen
resented with and have considered inforvatior evidencing a lac)
~ DOJ Letter of Objection - Harris Co. wm’
No. H-; (Dec.27, 1979)
3 Ly , @ oe x % EC §
-'d
of rasponsivencas on the part of eslectes officials te the neets cf the black conrmmity: darragnal soclonconariec contitione in tiie Llac) community which pare particivatios {pn tha clitical rrocess clfficult; and the prezonce of rainrisv-vese art Co- signategspont requirements for ranici:al elections.
|
|
On the Basta fps our review, it does not armear that T by the city wule cifer black yoters a fair orortunity to elect representatives of thair cholire, AL the sare tire, the City has reisctoq alternative svztens which would offer such an orpertunity. vor exarle, our aralvsis shows that an alteration of distrist lines wndsy the pro~osed four sincle~-nerler district syster so a= to Avoid the ccmbiration of the widalw 8erarated and disuiriilay Herthside ang Fairmont Fark areas coals produce a ciatrict in which the minority population woulc Le pul:ztantially larcer than thas of any district {i the subnitted vlan, Eirilarly, ve note that a plan of six sinclis-renter districee vas rresantel to the city which provided for ons Cistrice in wiley lac arg Ezanieh=-langiage votwre woul! fore a rajiority of 57 peroant, ard our own review has revselad that 2 sianificantly larsor majority (over £2 Ferecent) can he aciieveld under such a Flan without ANY resort to raxinization of minority voting strength. The salaction Lv the City of La Forte of a svsten which would retain hlack voting strencth at a nirnirue level, vhicre alternative options would provide a fair chance for Llack represevtatios, {pe ralevart to the auwadution of en dirvarmissitle Xacinl rurxrose in ita adontios. Bee Vilkes Connty v. Vidted States, 50 pv. Supe. 11M
rat
Rtas XIE 0. F.C es
Cader the clrcurstances ve aro unal:le to eorclude, as ¥e must under fection Ss that the charces would pot have a raclally diseriminatory Purpose or effuck. Accordingly, 1 rust, an behalf of the Attorney General, interrose an ohiac- tior. to the charter revieiong ame to tha proposed arpartion~ ’ i
rent plan,
0f course, as provicaed by Section % of the Voting Rights Act you have the right to suet a declaratory Juln- Rent from the United States District court for the Diatrict ef Coluri:ia that these changes have nelther che FurncHae ror will have the effect of denying or abridcing the richt to - Vote on aceount of race, color, or rerherahiy in a languace
Ee ate TR SRE EB game a a eas SE Rare Zo EEE nme = DR
"se 1 ECR Fedde : . PAN TALS aie Eh eae 2
)®
tration of Faction 5 (28 C.P.R. 31.21(b) and (c). $1.23, anc 51.24) permit you to recusst the Attornev Gensra! to roconsider the objagtion. Fowover, wnti]l the objection iw withdrawn or the judgment frorx the Datrict of Columbia Cours obtained, “the effect of the bijection by the Attorney General is to mace tla charter visions and apportionment plan legally unenforceable.
To erable this Uerartmont to ret {ta resronsibliey tc enforce the Yoting nights dot, pleaza {inform ue within twenty Caym of your receipt of thir letter what course of action the City of 1a Forte plans to tale with respect to thin matter, 1r you have any questions concerning thie letter, please feel free to call Mr. John F. Tanner (202-- 724-7329) of our staff, wlio ham bean aseiogne® ta hardle this sutmission. Please refer to Tile log. CLI80~5704 an’ C7574 in any written resonse to toils letter smc thas your correspondence will be properly channeled.
Sincerely,
row £. Devs TIT
hosistant Attorney Goenaral
Civil Nigohts Division
A ty Wo op. Re 7 Re I ER
’
d
- 9 a
DSD: JMC: DEH: xs wd }
DJ 166-012-3 we 4
C8199-8202; A3355 JAN 17 Hs
EA ra Richard GC. fadgeley, keg. rsa: Syl Tes Fh es €09 rannin Building, Buite 1308
il Yanain & Yexas : | hh Rousten, Yexas YI002
Dear Xr. tudgeley:s
This ix in reference to the procedures to ba followed
in the January 19, 1980, elootion of the Ccunty Bchool Trustees
of Harris County, Texas, sulmitted 10 the Fttornew Ceneral ypmr-
euaAnt to Bection $ of the Voting Rights Rect of 1985, as avonded,
and to ecogliange with Eection § by the county school ¢rustecs
vith respect to the date Of school trustea elections. Your
swxission vas received on Legonmber 20, 1979.
The seven members of the board of trnstees serve six
year termw, with two Or threes positions filled every two
years. As of kovenmber 1, 1972, school truvtene elactions
were held oa the first Faturday in October ¢f eid-nunhered
years, She legal effoct of Xousa Bill 275 (1975), was to
s:Aft the election date to the first Tagaday after the first
Mosday in NHoverter of odd-ammbered years. RMAxfore the school
trustees had an occasion for Holding sm election on the nov :
slaction dats, ths laglslature snactod Douse R111 443 (1277),
which cave the school trustees disorstion to choose from
aon; four possible election dates, fucludirg the Yovendar
date spacified by Mouse Rill 275. Pursuant to Eouse Bill 443,
the school trustees chose the third Brturday im Jannary of
even—-nunbered rears as the election date. a
A ehange of election data is subject to tha praclearance
requirenant of fection 5S of the Voting Rights Act. The mctecl
trustees’ submission of the eholee of ths Jaenary dats was
received by the Attorney Ceporal om Lovembar 25, 1977, Nore
aa aia -
3 : --
:
i ws . -— -riile - —
-, m . ; y . ” .
=. DOJ Letter of Objection - Harris Co. -—
No. H-8 (Jan.17, 1980) i -— me we — meme = ae” ® Yee a8 ia mesma Bambee oo wm
3
‘
® r : :
bd i»
w J] -
iuforvation with respect to that swlzizalon vase regusste’ on January 20 and rooceivel on February 28, 1772, and an skjoction with respect to the choice of the January date was interposed on lay 1, 1978. Tollowing a regusst for reconsideration receives on July 3, 1975, IX declined, ox Septadber 1, 1978, to withdraw the objection,
In brief, tho basis for the cbicction was that Bleck ant Fexigen~-Arorican wotere in Harris County would have a leszer opportunity to participate ir school trustes elec- tions Lf those elections were held in January, vhen there would eenerally be fewer ornortunitiss for joint elections in areas where most black end rexican~Merican voters rasida than if those wloctions were hols in Xovenber, when 4dhey osuld be held jointly with elections ef the City of nousten end of the Louston Yndepundent Erhool District snd with conatitutional ameniment alections. Although the required felinral proclaarance had not bson obtained, the school trustee election was eonductod on Janunyy 21, 1978.
Your mubtnission with respect to tha Prososed January 19, 1926, election indicates ro cheang=g in ¢iroun- stances that could provide a basis for the withdrawal of the objection to ths chelos of the January alecticn date. ~ We note taat, acooxrdine to your sub=ission, in the area that oceprizes tho Mocuston Independant Schosl District, only 25 polling places are schoduled to bo used on Jamary 1%, 1580, althowyh this area contzine 275 Harris County votine precincts, Eince the save adverse effect on minority voters that led to our previces objection would be expected te anain peculiarly dissdvantare minority voters, were the election held on Junaury 19, 19806, on behalf of the rtterney Cenaral I west again object to the county school trustees’ choice of election date.
oy
Tho cordbined effect of Eouse Bill 27S (1975) and the objections ender fection $ of the Voting Rights Act is that the legal elsctinn date for eho election held on January 21, 1378, wes Nouverdar 8, 1977, and that the lsgal elaction data for the election scheduled te be Seld on January 1%, 1%80, was Rovarbor 6, 1979. ERacause the two lace] election dates are no longer available for use, we believe that the Bost adequate remmdy for the school trusteas' fallure to comply with fection $ iu for nev elections to be held in econjunc~ ‘tion with the primary elections ef bay, 1980, at whieh tims i:
J
“yw
all masts filled {in January, 1978 and those that wara to
be filled in January, 19#0 would ba oper for election to
fill the soatr for the rexaindar of their terms. iny
vonflict with stats lay may be resolved through a conseat
decree filed in a Section $5 enforcement action in foderal
district court. Rll futurs elections would be beld 4n
dovenlex, wrless and wntlil an alterrative date is precleared
purasaznt to fection S$,
0 enable us to carry dub eur respensihility to
enforce the Voting Rights act, pleaes let us know iron
diatcly whether the county school trustees accept this
proposed soleduls of elections,
0f coursa, as provided by Section 5 of the Veting
Rights Act, you have the right to scek a declaratory Judg-
rant from the United Xtatas District Court for ths District
of Columbia that the county school trusiess' olwica of
¢ledtion date has pelither the purpora mur ths affect of
denying or abridging the right to vote oun eocount of race,
oulor, or menbership in a language minority group.
5 iy hove any questions eoncerning the matters
discusand this lotter, please do not heaitats to
Sal esHoe Voting Bectlon Jttorney David Buntar, at 203-—
i476 ®
Sincerely,
DREW B. DAYS XIX
Assistant Attorney Conaxal
Civil Rignts Division
Richard G, sSedgeley, Esq.
60% Fannin Building
4 OCT 1982 Suite 1301
.s tiouston, Texas 77002
year tir, sedycleys
This is in reference to the election date change trom the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in even-numbered years to the third Saturday in January in odd=numbered years for the election of memhers to the board of trustees for the Department of Fducation in Harris County, Texas, submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to Section $5 of the voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 (ieS4Ce 1973c. Your submission was received on August 4, 1982. Although we noted your request for expedited con- cideration, we have been unable to respond until this time,
We have considered carefully the information you have provided, as well as comments from other interested parties and information previously provided by the Harris County Department of Education. At the outset, we note that this change to January elections is not significantly different from and raises the same concerns as those which were noted in the previous submissions of November 25, 1977, and Necember 20, 1979.
Our analysis shows that the submitted change to January would result in holding elections on a date when a significant portion of the county's non-minority population will be voting for local school board members. on the other hand, in the Houston Independent School District (HISD) portion of the county, which contains the predominant proportion of the county's black and hispanic population, no voting for HISD
~ . ~N
ccs
w DOJ Letter of Objection - Harris CO... ue
No. H-9 (Oct.4, 1982)
-D -
school board members will occur nor are there any other
significant elf “tions on the proposed January date as there
are in November. Thus, our analysis reveals that, even with
an increase in the number of polling places as compared to
elections previously scheduled for January, the bifurcation of
the election fram other significant elections in the area
encompassed by the HISD will have a significant negative
impact on minority voting rights.
Under these circumstances, therefore, I am unable to
conclude that the Harris County Department of Education has
met its burden of showing that the submitted change does not
have the purpose or effect of discriminating against minority
voters. Accordingly, I must, on behalf of the Attorney
General interpose an objection to the election date change.
In this connection, we note that the Attorney General interposed
Section 5 objections to similar changes on two previous
occasions--May 1, 1978, and January 17, 1980.
Of course, as provided by Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act, you have the right to seek a declaratory judgment
from the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia that this change has neither the purpose nor will
have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on
account of race, color or membership in a language minority
groupe. In addition, the Procedures for the Administration
of Section 5 (28 C.F.R. 51.44) permit you to request the
Attorney General to reconsider the objection. . However,
until the objection is withdrawn or the judgment from the
District of Columbia Court is obtained, the effect of the
objection by the Attorney General is to make the requested
elect lon date change legally unenforceable. See also 28
Co.FaR, 51.9.
To enable this Department to meet its responsibility
to enforce the Voting Rights Act, please inform us of the
course of action Harris County plans to take with respect
to this matter. If you have any questions concerning this
letter, please feel free to call Carl W. Gabel (202-724-8388),
Director of the Section 5S Unit of the Voting Section.
Sincerely,
wm, Bradford Reynolds
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
April 2, 1984
Clenn R. Snyder, Tsq.
Snyder & Rugaard
P. 0. Box 248
DeSoto, Texas 75115
Dear Mr. Snyder:
This refers to the four polling place and the absentee
voting location changes for the Wilmer-Hutchins Independent
School District in Dallas County, Texas, submitted to the
Attorney General pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973c. We received your
submission on March 15, 1984. Although we were unable to
complete our evaluation by March 22, 1984, as you requested,
ve have expedited our consideration of your submission to the
extent possible pursuant to the Procedures for the Adminig-
tration of Section 5 428 C.F.R. 51.32).
We have considered carefully the information you have
provided, as well as comments and information provided by
other interested parties. At the outset, we note that the
ereater portion of the school district's population resides
in the northern part of the district which is a part of the
City of Dallas and is predominantly black. Under the existing
arrangement, there are two school district polling places in
this area (along with the absentee polling place) and one in
the less populated southern portion of the district which
contains the Cities of Wilmer, Hutchins, and Lancaster and
is predominantly white.
The proposed changes would establish new polling
places in the Cities of Wilmer, Hutchins, and Lancaster (in
the southern portion of the district) while abolishing one of
the two polling places now existing in Dallas in the northern
portion of the district and the absentee voting location
would be moved from the northern to the southern portion of
the district. In addition, the school district has arranged
to have its proposed polling places in Wilmer and Hutchins
combined with polling places being used for city elections
™
on DOJ Letter of Objection - Dallas Co. a
_ No. D-1 (Apr.2, 1984)
which are bei~ held on the same dov but the dictrict has declined to nursue similar arrangement’ for City of allas residents of the school district where city electious also are being held on the same day. Thus, our information indicaten thot not only would the schoo] district be moving polling places out of the hlack community (where the creater proportion vi the district's population resides) and into the less populated white arcas (Wilner, Hutehing, and Lancaster), ie would also be conferring oa white voters the additional advantage of consolidated voting locations for city elections and denying the black voters a adinilar opportunity,
The school district has not provided any credible reasons, unrelated to race, for its decrease in the facilities that will be available ro the predominantly black and pore heavily populated northern portion of the district nor for its failure to seek the use of Dallas city polling places for its zleetion. This especially concerns us because we understand that reeeat offeorts ty blacks in the district to resolve this situation have heen rejected hy the school Soard despite the wapragses willinoness of thn City of Uallas to coordinate rolling place locations with the Wilmer-Hutehing School Listricta (Yn satisiactory explanaticn hag been provided as to why the school board refuses to accommodate the hlack commmity's Aasire to vote in the same location for hoth city ard achool electione in the same manner that it accommodated tre largely white electorate in the Cities of Wilmer and Hukching,
dar Jection 5 af the Voting "ishts Act, the submitting authority has the burden of showing that o subnittad channe Taos not have the purpose and will not have the effect or denying or abrid;ing the right to vote on account of race or color. Sec Zeor.le v. TUnltsd Staten, 411 U.8. %35 (1972): gee also 29 J TLE BP Ta 1I;ht of the elrcumstances dige
cussed above, 1 cannot conclude, as IT muse wader the Voting Plghts fet, that that burden has been sustained in this instance. Therefore, on bernralf of the Attorney Ceneral, I must object to Lhe: proposed polling aslace and absentee voting location changes,
gh 1. #4 COurse, as nrovided hy Section § of tbe Votin: Piphta fet, wou have the right to sack a declaratory Judgment from the Jeitud Tkatss District Court for the Niptrict of Columbia that thaeae chenges hove nelther the PUIPOS2 nor willl have the ei foct af deuylie oy Aavridgine the right to vote gn account of race or color. In addition, Scction 21.44 of the gutdelines perauits Jew Lo raguest that the Attorney GConeral reconsider the OD jection. However, untill the od jection ig withdrawn or a ind ment Srom the District of Columbin Court is obtained, the elfect of the objection bv the Attorney Zeneral ig to male tlhe pronosad polling place and absentee voting location changes legally menioreeable. 29 C.F.h. 51.9,
to enable this Pensartment to meet its responsibility to enforce the Voting Pirhts Act, pleage inform ua of the courage of action tle “ilner-tiutehing Independent School Slatrict plans to tale with respect to this matter. If you have any questions, feel free to eall Carl VI. Gabel (202-724-2388) Ciractor of the Section 5 Unit of the Voting Scetion.
Sincerely,
Ye Sradford Peynolds
agslatant Attorueyr Generel
Civil Rights Division
TIE I TAT, WIE © eS —— 1 1 I gp ar
RECEIVED U.S. Department of Justice
MAR 1 3 1989 Civil Rights Division
Mg...
|
Office of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C. 203530
February 27, 1989 Mary Milford, Esq.
Law Offices of Earl Luna, P.cC. 4411 Central Building
4411 N. Central Expressway Dallas, Texas 75205
Dear Ms. Milford:
County, Texas, submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to Section
5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 vU.s.cC. 1973¢c. We
received the information to complete your submission on December 28
1988, and February sg, 16, and 22, 1989,
from other interested parties. At the outset, we note the very
abbreviated schedule allowed by the county for our review under eight of the changes on September 9, 1988, just 60 days prior to the
November sg, 1988, general election. Those changes were scheduled to
be and, in fact, were implemented beginning October 14, which, in
1988. The remaining two changes at issue were not adopted unti]
October 31, and we received that submission on November 3, 1988, two
days after the county implemented the additional changes and the day
before such absentee voting was to end.
During the course of our review, our staff orally informed
county officials that the Proposed changes were legally unenforceable
absent the requisite Section 5 Preclearance and that there was
to implementation. The county apparently intended to, and, in fact,
did proceed with these changes without obtaining the requisite
Section 5 Preclearance,
— DOJ Letter of Objection _ Dallas Co. ™
N09: D2 (Feby27, lon9y"
The November 1988 election was the first general and Presidential election conducted under the Texas law that eliminates
any person who was eligible to vote on November 8, 1988, was also eligible to vote by personal appearance during the absentee voting period from October 19 through November 4, 1988. Under Precleared
absentee voting by personal appearance. We note, as well, that Anglo and minority (both black and Hispanic) residents of Dallas County are not similarly situated socio-economically, since blacks and Hispanics lag significantly behind Anglos in income, education, occupational
November 8, 1988, general election, the five then existing branch absentee voting locations which were retained were all in
to a Predominantly Anglo area, including the Lancaster Library site, which is relocated from the Cummings Recreational Center location in a predominantly minority area. The county commissioners court also approved two additional absentee voting locations, each in a
Only after what appears to have been significant pressure from the black community did Dallas County agree to Place an absentee voting site in a location convenient to some blacks. Even so, the
the establishment of Yet another absentee voting location in another predominantly Anglo area (Lake Highlands). Moreover, notwithstanding that there were fewer than five days remaining in the absentee voting period and that the county elections department was Prepared to open the Martin Luther King Jr. Center site immediately upon its approval
. ®
»
- 3 -
as an absentee Polling place, the county nevertheless delayed opening
that absentee voting site until after the occurrence of an event
which, as the county was fully aware, would have provided many black
voters with a convenient opportunity to vote absentee by personal
appearance at the Martin Luther King Jr. Center site.
on past absentee voter turnout, which it avers
has been low in minority Communities, and current registration
absentee eligibility law prior to November 8, 1988, Furthermore, it
appears that past low levels of absentee voting by minority citizens
may be attributable in part at least to the lack of convenient
absentee Polling places and stricter eligibility requirements at
Predominantly Anglo, had significantly fewer registered voters,
but was served by an absentee voting location.
voters by precluding many minority citizens from voting. We advised
the county that continued use of the formula would, in our view, Clearly violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as
that this expanded opportunity is provided equally to all electors in Dallas County. The county’s timetable for and delay in addressing
the implementation of the new state law for the 1988 general election
a. r EER ST ET “he > oy Kile met yon le signe
| I Re Tre yes A TR rT A ra Tt pn +.
Ki «t LB!
- fd =
proposed under the new law. However, information we have received on the absentee voting results from the proposed voting locations for the 1988 election lend significant support to the concerns that have been raised about the failure of the absentee voting program to provide black and Hispanic voters an opportunity equal to that of Anglo voters to cast absentee ballots under the new expansive Texas procedure.
Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the submitting authority has the burden of showing that the submitted changes have no discriminatory purpose or effect. See Georgia v. United States, 411 U.S. 526 (1973); see also the Procedures for the Administration of Section 5 (28 C.F.R. 51.52(c)). In light of the circumstances discussed above, I cannot conclude, as I must under the Voting Rights Act, that that burden has been sustained in this instance. rh The program for absentee voting by personal appearance operated by Dallas County for the 1988 general election cannot be precleared under Section 5 at this time nor, in view of the circumstances
involved here, could it have been even had it been timely submitted prior to its implementation on October 14 and November 1, 1988. Therefore, on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to the six branch absentee voting location changes, the three additional branch absentee voting locations, and the implementation schedule
therefor, to the extent that it delayed absentee voting at the Martin Luther King Jr. Recreational Center until November 1, 1988,
In addition to interposing an objection to the use in the 1988 election or in any future election of the proposed system, we feel a responsibility to advise the county of its duty in the future to obtain Section 5 preclearance prior to implementation of changes of this nature and that, in light of this experience, we will feel
constrained to interpose an objection to, and seek court enforcement as needed to prevent, future implementation of any untimely submitted
changes in the absentee voting program. In that regard, we are
studying the circumstances to determine if it will be necessary or
appropriate to seek a court-ordered remedy as to the 1988 actions.
Of course, as provided by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act,
you have the right to seek a declaratory judgment from the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia that these changes
have neither the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or
abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership
in a language minority group. In addition, Section 51.45 of the
- 5 =
guidelines permits You to request that the Attorney General reconsider the objection. However, until the objection is withdrawn
or a judgment from the District of Columbia court is obtained, the
effect of the objection by the Attorney General is to make the changes legally unenforceable. 28 C.F.R. 51.10.
If you have any questions, feel free to call Ms. ILora L. Tredway
(202-724-8290), Attorney-Reviewer in the Voting. Section.
Sincerely,
of
: James P. Turner Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
CC: Mr. Bruce R. Sherbet
Dallas County Elections Administrator
ir. W. G. Morton MAR 17 1977
Fresident, board of Trustecs
somerset Independent ochool
pistrict Post Officc Box 278
sorersct, Texas 78069
Dear rir. Horton:
rhis is in reference to the imposition of a place
gystam and the bilingual election procedures for tho
April 2, 1977 election for the Somerset Independent
school District, Texas, subnitted to the Attorney Genexal
pursuant to section 5 of the Voting Rights hct of 19G5,
as ancnded. Your submission was raceived on January 17,
197%. Although we noted your raqueat for expedited consid=-
eration, we vere unable to comply.
rhe attorney General docs not interposae an objection
to thc bilingual procedures for the April 2, 1977 alection.
However, we fool a responsibility to point out that Section 5
of the Voting Rights Act expressly provides that the failure
of tho attcrncy General to object does not bar any subscquent
judicial action to enjoin the enforcement of such change.
In regard to the addition of tho place systcm to the
at-large election of school board members, we have made a
careful examination of tho information you provided and
comments from interasted parties, as well as racent court
decisions. Our analysis reveals that Mexican-Anericans
constitute a substantial proportion of the population of
the Somerset Independent School District and that there are
indications that bloc voting along ethnic lines exists.
under such circumstances, recent Supreme Court decisions,
to which we feel obligated to give great weight, indicate
that the combination of the above features would have the
cffoct of abridging minority voting rights. Soe YWhite v.
peqester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973), and Beer Vv. United bBtatoes,
TUE. 130 (1976); see also immer V. ecKelthen, 485
FP. 2d 1297 (5th Cir. 1973), affirmed on other grounds
sub non. Last carroll Parish school Board v. Marshall,
i346 U.S. C36 (1976) and Graves Vv. Barnes, 378 F. Supp.
640 (W.D. TeX. 1974).
a DOJ Letter of Objection_ Bexar C 0.
No. B~-1 . (Mar.l17, 1977)
HE Lv
On the basis of our examination, we are unable to conclude, as we rust under the Voting Rights Act, that the imposition of the Place system in the context of the at-large election system for the school board will not have a discriminatory effect on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.
Accordingly, I must on behalf of the Attorney General interpose an objection of the imposition of the place system for electing school hoard members in the Somersot Independent School District.
proscribed purposc or effect irrespective of whether the changes have previously beon submitted to the Attornoy Coeneval, However, until auch a Judgment is rendered by that come, the legal effect of the objection by thes Attorney Goneral is to render the change in question
Flease advise us within 10 days of the steps that you intend to take to conply with this decision.
Sincerely,
Drew S. Days III
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
SSISTANT ATTORNLY Gonrray,
a»
.
Bepartment of Justice
Mashington, D.C. 20530
JAN 23 1576
Honorable Mark White
Secretary of State of Texas Capitol Station
3 Austin, Texas 78711
Dear Mr. Secre tary:
Attorney General Pursuant to Section 5 of te Voting Rights Act of 1965. Your submission was received on November 26, 1975.
Civil Action’ No, A-71-CA-142 (W.D. Tex.). On the
In conducting our Section 5 review of legis- ative districtings, Such as those contained in House Bill 1097, we evaluate the effect of the
lf et
3 i. : fi
DOJ Letter of Objection
No. Ta-1 (Jan.23, 1976)
~ Tarrant Co...
- Fig
412 vu.s. 755 (1973), and related cases (see, e.g City of Petersburg (Va.) wv. United States, 354 F, Supp. 1021 (D, D.C. 1972), aff'd, 410 U.S. 962 (1973)) to assure that the voting rights of cognizable racial minorities are not minimized or diluted, 2
With respect to the effect of the new single- member districts defined in House Bill 1097 for Jefferson County, Districts 7a-7cC, our analysis shows
the subdistricting would appear to be a legitimate consideration by the State, it also appears that, from available alternatives, the subdistricting lines adopted in House Bill 1097 have an unnecessary dilutive
almost evenly divides the county's minority population
considerations of district Compactness or on the basis of any compelling governmental justification, and at least one single-member district with a significant . minority population would result under fairly drawn alternative districting plans,
«3
: Regarding Districts 32A-321 in Tarrant County it appears that Portions of the new single-member district lines are drawn through cognizable minority
avoid placing portions of the minority residential ° concentrations in as many districts and would result in two districts with significant minority Populations. We note that at least two of the districting alternatives Presented to the Court Prior to its order of January 28, 1975, in Graves v, Barnes, avoided the fragmenting of cognizable minority residential areas in Tarrant County that results from House Bill 1097. As we found with
~ Court for the Dis
ey
Of course, as provided by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, you have the right to seek a declaratory judgment from the United States District
trict of Columbia that these districts neither have the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in Section 4(f) of the Act. However, until and unless such a judgment is obtained, the provisions objected to are unenforceable.
Sincerely,
ssistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Davision
|
\
s
m
i
i
m
—
—
_
—
—
—
—
—
i
S
r
i
|
i
|
i
|
|
HN | 6 118
HZ. John F. Pettit
Assistant Secretary of State
Capltol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
Fr. Cecil A. Horgan
Forgan, Gamblll & Owen
<108 Continental Life Building
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
bear Messrs. Pettit and Horgan:
This is in reference to Mouse Bill 2152, 65th Legis~ tature, Roqular Sesalon, 1977, and to tha implementation, a3 get forth below, of Houso Bill 2152 by the ort Worth Independent School District, submiited to the Attorney General pursuant to Sectlon 5 of the Voting Rights Act, “3 amended. Tha submission of House Bill 2152 was originally received on July 1, 1977. Additional information with respeot to this submission was received on October 31 and rovenboer 17, 1977. Tha submission of the implementation of ‘hiouss Bill 2152 by the Fort Worth Independent School District vas originally received en October 31, 1977, and was supnlo= mented ca lavember 17, 1977. Pecause Fouse Billi 2152 at this time directly affects only the Fort Worth Independent school District, we have considered it appropriate to analyge this legislation in connection with our analysis of its implementation by the Fort Worth Independent School District, Similarly, because the changes adopted by the Port Worth Ludependent School District are authorized or required by louse Lill 2152, we can rake a determination with raspect to thesa changes under Scetion 5 only after a determination has been made with Teopect to louse Bill 2152. Although we noted your request for expedited consideration, we have been unable to respond until this tine.
With the condition specified below, the Attorney Coneral does not interpose any objection to House Rill =152. However, we feel Q responedbility to point out that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act expressly provides that the failure of the Attorney General to object does not bar any subsequent judicial action to enjoin the enforcament of such changes,
w. DOJ Letter of Objection Tarrant Co,
No. Ta=2 (Isn.76. 1878)
o =
the at-large election of trustees of the Fort Worth Lidependent Echool District. As a result, we are unable to conclude, as we must under the Voting Rights Act, that the delay in the implementation of the use of the seven single- menbar district plan by the Fort Worth Independent School Listrict does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to ‘vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. Therefore, on behalf of the Attorney General, I must interpose an objection to the implementation by the Fort Worth Indepen~- dent School District of Section 23.023 (kh) of the Texas Iducation Code.
Of course, as provided by Section 5 you have the right to Besk a declaratory Judgment from the United States Distriot Court for the District of Columbia that the change in question nelther has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or rembershind in a language minority group. In addition, the Attorney General's Section 5 guidelines (28 C.F.R. Ll.231, 51.23 and $51.24) permit you to request reconsideration of this matter. llowever, until such time as the objection may ve withdrawn or a favorable judgment from the District of Colwwla Court is obtained, the effect of the objection by the Attorney General 1s to make the method of transition specified by Section 23.023 (h) legally unenforceable for the Fort Worth Independent School District.
Sincerely, -
Drew 5, Days III
Assistant Attorney Genaral
Civil Rights Division
J SBISTANT ATTORNLY GENERAL
Brepariment of Justice
Mushington, D.C. 20530
JAN 94 76
[|]
Honorable Mark White
Secretary of State of Texas
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
Dear Mr. Secretary:
This is in reply to your submission of the subdistrictings of 9 mul timember Texas House of Representatives districts in House Bill 1097 of the 1975 Session of the Texas Legislature, to the Attorney General pursuant to Section 5 of t'e Voting Rights Act of 1965. Your submission was received on November 26, 1975.
in the cases consolidated sub nom, Graves v, Barnes,
In conducting our Section 5 review of legis- ative districtings, such as those contained in House Bill 1097, we evaluate the effect of the
-— A> eee ww) -~s wy
La / oo .
Vil
— DOJ Letter of Objection - Jefferson Ca.
No. J-1 (Jan,23, 1976)
-2
resulting districts on racial and language minority groups in the light of fairly drawn available districting alternatives and the legislature's
affirmative duty as represented by White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973), and related cases (See, e.z., City of Petersburg (Va.) v. United States, 354 F. Supp. 1021 (D. D.C. 1972), aff'd, 4107.85. 962 (1973)) to assure that the voting rights of cognizable racial minorities are not minimized or diluted, >
With respect to the effect of the new single- member districts defined in House Bill 1097 for Jefferson County, Districts 7A-7C, our analysis shows that the subdistricting may be affected to a substantial degree by the extent to which the boundaries of pre- viously existing mul timember district 7 are changed and the manner in which it is done. While alteration of the multimember district boundaries to accommodate the subdistricting would appear to be a legitimate consideration by the State, it also appears that, from available alternatives, the subdistricting lines adopted in House Bill 1097 have an unnecessary dilutive effect, The location of single-member district lines almost evenly divides the county's minority population among the county's three new single-member districts, none of the three districts has a significant minority- population, such a division appears to be unnecessary on the basis of natural boundaries or overriding considerations of district compactness or on the basis of any compelling governmental justification, and at least one single-member district with a significant . minority population would result under fairly drawn alternative districting plans.
“3
Regarding Districts 32A-32I in Tarrant County it appears that portions of the new single-member district lines are drawn through cognizable minority residential concentrations resulting in an apportion- ment or fragmenting of those areas into 4 districts, only one of which has a significant minority population, while fairly drawn alternative districting plans would avoid placing portions of the minority residential concentrations in as many districts and would result in two districts with significant minority populations,
presented to the Court prior to its order of January 28, 1975, in Graves v. Barnes, avoided the fragmenting of cognizable minority residential areas in Tarrant County that results from House Bill 1097. As we found with regard to the submitted districting in Jefferson County, the result in House Bill 1097 for Tarrant County does not appear to be necessary on the basics of natural boundaries or overriding considerations of district compactness or on the basis of any compelling govern- mental justification.
Thus, our evaluation indicates that the fragmenting of cognizable minority residential concentrations in Jefferson and Tarrant Counties will have a dilutive effect on minority voting strength, and accordingly, we are unable to conclude as we must under Section 5 that implementation of the districts 7A-7C and 324-321 set out in House Bill 1097 for Jefferson and Tarrant Counties will not have a discriminatory effect. Under these circumstances I mist, on behalf of the Attorney General, interpose an objection to the implementation of the specified districts set out in House Bill 1097 for Jefferson and Tarrant Counties,
“li.
Of course, as provided by Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act, you have the right to seek a
declaratory judgment from the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia that these districts
neither have the purpose nor will have the effect of
denying or abridging the right to vote on account of
race or color or in contravention of the guarantees
set Ibrth in Section 4(f) of the Act. However, until
and unless such a judgment is obtained, the provisions
objected? to are unenforceable.
Sincerely,
Civil Rights Division
\
wd
25 Fen 11m
Mr, Tanner T. Hunt, Jr.
Attorney for the South Park
Independent School District
P. 0. Box 3708
Beaumont, Texas 77704
Dear Mr. Hunt:
This is in reference to the change to election
by position Zor the Board of Trustees of South Park
Independent School District, Texas, submitted to the
Attorney General pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act of 1965, as amended. Your submission was received on
December 23, 1976.
We have glven careful consideration to the infor-
mation furnished by you as well as information and comments
from Interested parties. Our analysis reveals that blacks
constitute a substantial proportion of the population of
South Park Independent School District and that bloc
voting along racial lines may exist. Under these circum-
stances, recent court decisions, to which we feel
obligated to give great weight, suggest that the
combination of such features as numbered positions
and at-large elections have the potential for abridging
riinority voting rights, See White v. Regester, 412 U.S.
755 (1973); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971).
On the basis of our analysis, we are unable to
conclude, as we must under the Voting Rights Act, that
this change will not have a racially discriminatory
effect on the conduct of elections in South Park
DOJ Letter of Objection - Jefferson Coe
in Rs
fey ee
No. J-2 (Feb. 25, 1977)
a
L
E
E
-
P
R
hd
T
A
R
T
A
P
A
P
A
S
eo
$9
S
O
T
R
E
E
T
h
T
A
L
E
I
i
Independent School District. Accordingly, on behalf
of the Attorney General I must Interpose an objection
to the Implementation of the change to electing the
Board of Trustees of South Park Independent School
District by designated position.
Of course, as provided by Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act, you have the right to seek a declaratory
judgment from the District Court for the District of
Columbia that this change has nelther the purpose nor
will have the effect of denying or abridging the right
to vote on account of race. Until such judgment is
rendered by that Court, however, tho legal effect is
to make the change in question unenforceable.
Sincerely,
DREW S. DAYS, III
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
RIT Gl ERR ny 0) ! 1%) SPARS Bd Gq -7 SAUL RY
i Ks oh '
pa AR i it. Trost 2
Yaew'ty ATR LY - Col EA a 3 a Ms Vo Rl ie bal hd 0 3 ;
bose Tel, owen on,
boi a? 3
red Vip ., pte
F
N
L
e
e
ee
—
—
—
—
—
=
m
y
—
—
U.S. Depagyent of Jus)
Civil Rights Division
Office of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20530
George Wikoff, Esq.
City Attorney
City of Port Arthur
Post Office Box 1089
Port Arthur, Texas 77640
Dear Mr. Wikoff:
Lakevi
of the
78-47,
(Ordin
council digtrict
{
{
This 1s in reference to the consolidation of
ew, Pear Ridge and Port Arthur, the annexations
Sabine Pass area (Ordinance Nos. 78-43, T78-4Y
79-33, 79-34 and 79-67) and Gulf of Mexlco tracts
ance Nos. 79-79, 79-103 and 79-116), and the revised
plan (Ordinance No. 80-02), submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act «of 1965, as amended. Your submission was received on February 5, 1980. In accordance with your request expedited consideration has been given this submission pursuant to the Procedural Guidelines for the Administration of Section 5 (28 C.F.R. 53.22). :l.am also writing to discuss more fully the cverall compliance by the City of Port Arthur, the City of Pear Ridge and the Town of Lakeview with Section > of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 19%73c.
that "the Attorney
As you know, on March 24, 1978, a Section 5 objection was interposed to the consolidation of Pear Ridge and Lakeview into Port Arthur. The letter of objection notified the City
the consolidation should the City of Port Arthur undertake to elect members of its city council from fairly-drawn single- member districts." Since that time our staff has met with representatives of the City on Several occasions in an effort to resolve this matter. Your latest proposal to obtain compliance with Section 5 was received on February 5, 1980, as lndicated above. We have determined, after analysis, that the expansion of the Port Arthur City Council to eight members elected on an at-large basis from residency districts, instead of the seven previously provided for, does not meet the con- cerns that led to the objection. Therefore, on behalf of the Attorney General and for the reasons previously stated I must decline to withdraw the objection of March 24, 1978.
DOJ Letter of Objection - Jefferson Co.
No. 'J-3 (Mar.5, 1980)
A" eT and £99 ABBE AM He
; Va »
We have also examined the voting changes occasioned
by the City's annexation of the area known as Sabine Pass.
Our analysis shows. that these voting changes serve to
further exacerbate the dilution of minority voting strength
caused by the earlier consolidation of Pear Ridge and
Lakeview into the City of Port Arthur. For that reason,
therefore, I must, on behalf of the Attorney General, interpose
an objection to the annexation. Of course, as with our
previous objection, the Attorney General will reconsider this
objection should the City of Port Arthur undertake to elect
members of 1ts city council from fairly-drawn single-member
districts. Also you have the right, as provided by Section 5,
to seek a declaratory judgment from the United States District
Court for the District of Columbla that these changes have
nelther the purpose nor the effect of denying or abridging the
right to vote on account of race, color or membership in a
language minority group.
{
Absent a declaratory judgment from the District Court
for the District of Columbla, of course, the legal effect of
the objections 1s to render the voting changes legally
unenforceable. See, e.g., Allen v. State Board of Elections,
393 U.S. 544 (1969); Heggins v. City of Dallas, B69 F. Supp.
739 (N.D. Tex. 1979); Leroy and United States v. City of Houston,
C.A. H78-2174 and C.A. HT8-2807 (S.D. Tex., July 19, 1979).
Notwithstanding the objection of March 24, 1978, the City's
fallure to obtain a withdrawal of that objection and the
objection interposed today, we are aware that most of the
voting changes occasloned by the consolidation and annexation
have been implemented. Although city-wide councilmanic
elections in the expanded Port Arthur have not been conducted,
regularly scheduled elections in "old" Port Arthur have been
cancelled as have elections in Pear Ridge and Lakeview. The
Port Arthur City Councll's responsibilities now include
governing the former areas of Pear Ridge, Lakeview and Sabine
Pass. The City of Port Arthur has provided representation
for the Pear Ridge and Lakeview areas by appointing the mayors
and counclls of the respective municipalities to advisory
councils and by establishing procedures for electing successors
to these councils. Our staff has requested that the City
submit the ordinances establishing these advisory councils
for Section 5 review but the City has refused to make the
necessary submission.
. 93 ®
-~'3
Under these circumstances, we believe that prompt
action must be taken by the City to obtain a withdrawal of the March 24, 1978 objection, the objection interposed
today and preclearance of the voting changes occasioned
by provisions for the advisory councils, or Port Arthur,
Pear Ridge, Lakeview and Sabine Pass must revert to the
method of governance and election which existed prior to
the consolidation and annexation. Almost two years have
passed since the date of the initial Objection and we
perceive no basis for continued delay. Our experience
in enforcing Section 5 in other Texas municipalities,
such as Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio, demonstrates
that these matters are capable of resolution without the
delay that has resulted in the Port Arthur matter.
Thus, I request that you notify us within seven days
of receipt of this letter as to what steps the City is
wllling to take either to obtain a withdrawal of the March
24, 1978 objection and the .objection interposed today and to
obtain preclearance of the ordinances establishing advisory
councils or to revert back to the prior method of governance
and election. Our staff remains willing to work with you
and the appropriate officials during this time to resolve
the matters» However, if we do not receive a firm commitment
for a prompt resolution we will institute legal proceedings
and request the court to order the necessary relief.
You have also submitted for preclearance, pursuant to
Section 5, three ordinances which annexed tracts in the
Gulf of Mexico. Since these annexations do not have a dilutive effect on the electorate of Port Arthur, the Attorney General
interposes no objection to the annexations contained in Ordinances No. 79-79, 79-103 and 79-116.
If you have any questions regarding these matters
please feel free to contact Mr. Robert S. Berman of our Voting Section at 202/724-6680. Mr. Berman is the attorney
who 1s responsible for this matter and he will be available
during the next seven days to work with you and the city
officials to resolve this matter.
Co o ©
TE
We appreciate your cooperation and it is our hope
that this matter can be resolved without the necessity
of litigation.
Sincerely,
Drew S. Days 111
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
cc: George W. Strake, Jr.
Texas Secretary of State
Bernis W. Sadler,
Mayor, City of Port Arthur
George Dibrell,
City Manager of Port Arthur
\ ;
Robert Q. Keith, Esq.
tod 23 JuL 1980
he res £ en *y Wei go bof ET b S
* 4 . AR SET TH WR
. 3 Lo ALR nN RJ
hat . Nad 1 », ” by t Tray
er it Vy ne Wo J A - J ea
fi y > 8 .
LES) 3 rLiaay OR RE rs Tid .
Lr 4 bl ad
wR Rn Ue oY .y) a
aly 4p Ya reference to Ondinanoss xox, 30-17.
ca aw. aid Arend ATID). waleu previde Por & spealal
Acar Lo Tus) pe Pemwacun election ane changes relnilum
tngindine Myve nollilinr flats AETEIRRL DF
Aad FM BARSYHEL0N of soars Por abzestsas vatlun, for tie
sity af fort Artiar fn Julfersen canst Ag &
L bay § sw Several musauent bo featliown boob
3
" ; ® oo «
riwsad vo ung AVRLrLE 4
2 y p 3 Ka) E] : cs &r, TR Te . 5 . po ;
Cais Yel in + 34 ni 3 8 Xi Ley BE i 3 * WR ads 5 TPA Ra ‘ Lai RVR
: . ; s a ae wy. y
wtntad erolLastad ndleate LAC Lue me Puranas #181 Lo
3 ; a : 7 ; . pa A | ¢ $ vir | Era | hs £ 0 od » Erte i
Sods TPR IEDC -A F Ti idl QolRRsiaiogl - bo LR AOR Ed r
4 a 3 ne go. 3 A. ® L.A ir te Wi -
a? metas Pag 30 0es wad Sable TANR, TLOT Ske i on
‘ J Vo ms Feu go on npn per hogan LR ~
v 4 A i Hh, iH % h Vig x, rd vi J wk LY La i pA > NE 1) » 3 Ek Pe] i ip ch RRL TR | % <° 3
re PE » i: nor
EN Wa PRE,
Loa ChDy Lan
’
“ | FS
Ny veg ©, " FY va BA Ww
oat Combai Ek heen wWivea thik
" - oo
ks :
poi he AEN i“
tale rine
s A Wa ame (od noe A a * > f 4d ar Dead
x t EN uw, 3 : 'y : ‘ aA 1. v ww oe Wy Aig oF] va
- * '
. - . y & dT
- ™ 4; wade g i HRS * ESS d 1] 1
LT ™2 dy J 3 an + VE Gl, Al BR w dw dq £ FS Ale a
sh a tox *> i
ww IIRVE TITRA OB! hl
-
1 . iy ERTS : [e ~ Alo Po
ES Ti 3 ivi r [™ ty . A CARS
re ALG ES NR SRO Jp
% Jatianizad snnesatlioen Aa
ARENA LS oa THR IR h
eieabh Loaw wai dm Roey FR Sar OE $7 BEY
wR ut WEST NY ra % I ’ wid Ww : od 9 ’ iy *
Pendtue Tors var owe toudagied Ro tae Olhy ol Port Arihar
ESL Lab Slhjuation Siuewd Hellion 7 13 Pande . GAVHII
Cini AOnS TET eT allely Go pesvick no oenals Dor
: wh hi uriwial of tua Pwalion J oLRIGLBATn LL Lod JOF spziaaviansg,
DOJ Letter of Objection - Jefferson Co.
“No. J-4 (July 23, 1980)
5 : yu { . wer ‘
Fert PRY SP) ey A obs iF “IRA and (ge igh P)
i fo’ atl RI '
wo. by t?s A: vt rhe a A HAE Neb i BHA 1 AR
a o
Gligatloneg Yhat ars caleclaisd tu lesed to Lis adaption
20 2 BIR fer elueblop ths AVY roverning 9724y watzh
FEL vPN Treas, BP “latfordtng Wlmer weatusnta) represen.
vuiion rrasokn § oaveiveleont wo Rhelp political a%renyys
Lao the enlapoe emu itr.” ivy 2f Bennaad vw, United
Tenkea. $20 5.%. 19%. 43 (13757 eed algo City of "7
: . 1 y
hy
i
Petmpabare vv. Unlbtad Staxen, R53 FO orupe, 21521 (mn.
15T2). afera, S17 8.3, ud (1971). cihis 13 the exea
3 prinSinle we cowsnclotad la the similar Heuston srnezssion
i Sauter Lest masner, aad In our letters af shiestion
of Pegenher J), A4TH. snd damunry 15, 1533 %o a 2ze¢eial
1 raterendur slestion An the sxpandad City of Part Arthur,
yh
k FaPevhnt Be your request we Save nasil snnuunated
] 2 Sestian 2 Foview of Che elogbtieon slaps tuamaaived,
] THEY Er wy TLAT, Lo fone Rxtent, venaidar toy plasm
4 Po Re srakanied to (he aaaandec pity 11 order ta
5 wGlevulng wiatner the leds offer ray neomiad 2% efferdins
daseh veslduoatae reoresetbat ion Prassonarly «qulvs lent La
chtelr palitioal avpsurth 10 bhe GxGandsd o4%y. On She
vasls af ocr past oxperlenne, 1% ie sur visw txat the
So plea. AT ensetia, jeatielliass tnia test since it offers.
SoMa Lppnlaa of roanidgiiay Shs eanaarns walsh lau wy ;
Tied Ow lesiian. Tay, 10 Shia were Yoy only elozition olan
calfie nrarenlel ve woulda Interpntd so arizstion v8 the
suratant 2F ths eefersndwor An bad axnanded aly, Gomayan.
Lad wpsnosel referdndan AZSo apkiants ta the yatery woo
Hon plan, Tart tlan. 1P snasted. will net affews
JAX Lat ianbn Pare s sat ak on varsarai ly enaivalont on
aly nodit ian heen LA he aslermwd Sammunley ;
Ay al Wiehmund », Unites duursey suSEA. kasewdlngly
{ agit sarcativa a» castle far grad Pinp Fagtian % gre
SEARING E Ko Tour Pr antl For sdbaidiin: that nla te
Woe wananded 21%r. thus. on LehsiP of ye AV gras:
warn 1 ool feet Ra Che pefhrondan as Been ssed
$13
?
ir
vd
bi aiid 2 aha RAS NN Le
rearing Lhis po NMowaver TT pitrucs
ney Penersd wiil pe Aeation % nresglearance
ni Shi nl» rafter epfium in
: : 3 Yan(e) 45 uo
roasts) bo E hepato. Thus
BRA fot S57 awe ulan wh ne x cronies
tan ror. sar3vin- : Lr BE But |
sould ta EERE to tae avons of ‘the
Toauld énch a pefefreanus by conducted a6
SEE hr the volrrs woula Le subjiaol to
“pe laNrInee rogRiremests’ Ana
Kae 1th reset Lo Lhe puavnoss
5 is.
1 ivaraty that tho ‘6352 ia nob precluded
48 ols TY CA KE. wlan or aby eblayr roferendur issue
tO TL¥ wveLars af aid CVars Arbour cd.e.. those peraons
realdlae witnls Su vogndarlos al Lhe city st Liey existed
L5% Low oolseliiasiony aan prs Xat ion ia Fussbivn.
Await af much § refOTOnSUY would be sl L9Ta0t
Yo oprarlearanss only wi Li yegard 0 any hu
Groat ary TRS 1D 2lmotlan orandicdn a» UYAIRLErERn.
TH ReCIAR Agaticn HS af tne Yotin:
SeuG 8 Gre lared ary
“iateliot vourt for tha?
npenGesss re feranlun and
nT Lhe a PPfoect aT arying or akrilrinrs
agonant of Tage eGlor or waxuerstio
i dy -
Liles : FrSAYLLDTS
PA
1
ad ”
ol on
v
Ac
“
a“
ka
od
33
0°
¥
|
)
4 ky ¢ >
|
‘o
w
E
S
Li ranuUdat lak
Ignition. navever,
wi or The Yul
nnd. Lhe err
Ls Lo uae
. y, ’ % fit. lerilily
£
%
BF
A
e
%
0
i
Er
or
y
E
n
Ey
N
t
IX
2%,
»
~
eo
,
.
»
>
ha
of
F
4
0
3
£3
.0
3
spt i
Po v
y
-
~
=
»
y
o
r
E
D
ga
8
of
Po
g3
ts
2
r
-
“r
% 3
aranaum RA
RE
b
e
t
-ty
Since a hearing has been scheduled for July 24,
1980 in United States v. City of Port Arthur, we will
notify the office of the Honorable Robert A. Parker,
by telephone, of the entry of this objection and will
hand-deliver a copy of this letter to the Court prior
to the hearing. |
We continue to look forward to a prompt resolution
of the long-standing Section 5 objection to the consoli-
dation and annexation and it is our hope that the City
will promptly propose for presentation to the voters
an election plan meeting the remedial standard described
herein.
Sincerely,
James P. Turner
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
. . v 9 . - PR TO ' . . Aika i [ aL mA er t - Jo 7 ob _ - Banton comrade ce ok niall et Badiadte A CRE SIA ARE « fr 00 SIE SL ES ET GY Ltt 3 PRE BE PEER, SE Tap ie Trad weft hase prt tia vets weg I St A PRAY DSA APA SI hl rir ie iene, 1 - a. -
: v Te 2" eT) py Ta A A > 8 hs. TE a AAG AIIT SAYRE. SETRRAr SS Pg RY 14 at 25 Lo SET
:
3 - , : 2 ir - ag ' - Sain . : itd : ‘ : va
Indes P being 7 : : ; . 4
; 5 arte REY 1 RI AUG SEY LE DMS I el Ga TRL od TR AT hv
o CT TRUE TL PE PA. RE ae RL tl eben en
EAORIPAEY UWI Pr | So RR EAR RE WE CELI RL A REALE
MolBd 2g Bd a RAST Lai FR Rh SER AEA 5 a : ab FE BREA Jn Ale ali we Wi Tb le LT ami
. LL RE]
4
- o— 3 Sg =
— ne vv
%5 . FO aon
Gorge Wikoff, < nn i Foie ee
ity ALLOFIGY Te eee 15 Jan 1980
“ity of Pore Arthur
yort Gftics Jax 1387
POEL ALLONr, S«xags TTuad0
]
b
a
a
l
Se
: osar Hx. ¥irolfl: | x |
« BN " j y
p+ 2nis 18 in reference to Oxdinartes So. 7%~119, whieh
\ calls for a referandun clestion oi collective baxgalzdng
- agnadaled for Jamuwary 1%, 1884, in the Ciyy of Poxt Artur,
: Jefferson County, Texas, sabmiited te the Attorney Cencyal
ursnant to fection 5 of the Voting &igute Agu of 15, a
anendsd. Your subtmisslon was xeomivaed on lwcenkay 27, 137%,
Aonordias to your letter of swindmeion, Ordinances
so, 79-11% was anacted ip repeal ard suparceced Ordinance
10. 79-10% walel, like Ordinasce wo. 73-112, provides
for the roeferencun election on solleotive bargsaindr
sohwauled for vanuary 1%, 1%89. Yowevar, on Secestar Z1,
1973. prior to our reculpt of vour resent awsission, an
shjection was interrosesn te tha January 1%, 1583, referendun
slection provided for in Cedinanca io. 75-106. Tha purpose
of this Juttar id to Aviza vou that, fur tha reasons azt
tort in our letier of “wcember Ll, 1¥7%, relating to
Oreiaance wm. T2108 the Attorney Gonoral alse eljocis to
vue reforsodus election set forth in Ordliaarcs bo. 79-117.
Of course, as provided hy scction ¥ af the Vetine
iohts rot you Lava the right ve sess a declaratory july-
sant fre the vasltad States District Tourt for the idastricot
of inluphia thet these changag have nxithar wie purpose Nor
will nave the effect of Geaylng cr anrideluy the right to
vote nn account of race, lor, or sesheratip in 2 language
~inority oroup. 1 xdditior, tha Frecocuxrsre fox tha Ainindeg-
ration of section 5 (28 CL. P.R. 31.21({%) aad (uv). 21.23, aad
11,24) permit vou to Tegaesi the Mitornsr GCensral te regunsider
DOJ Letter of Objection - Jefferson Co.
Ton No. J-5 (Jan.15, 1980)
Chee ableotion. however, untll the ehisation 13 wierd raw: 0X
pha judqnest [ro run sdstrict of Colaatin Court obtained, po
wifant of tho oljection by The Artornay Seneral le LO wake the
co faoraniua lection Lagally nnenforosns ld.
+o enshle this Darartwent vo maet ire responaibllity
ron wnforee the Yoting gis hat, plosss iafons an {rome intel;
sn receipe ef hds LHLLOY ad RO WRAL QQuIJas af aotlon the
pigy ef Port sry pAans So rake with regzpegit LO this SBOE.
If yom have any guastions concerning this lotcer, nigase feel
frege to call ur. Jase vic (AD2~=eFRE~EETH), ow? our staff, who
wau been apeigned to handle nis mubodssion, Please rater Lc
eile Hos. 5342 aad <TT43 in guy written respoass to this
latier £0 that Yous COrresroniaics will Le prepsrly channmlei.
Giaeeraly,
JAMES FP. TUREBK
acting Asulsvant AULOInoy Saparal
civil rights Division
(liiiiogn +2
Office of the Assistant Atiorney General ; Washington, D.C. 20530
Mr. George Wikoff
City Attorney
P. O. Box 1089
Port Arthur, Texas 77640
Dear Mr. Wikoff:
This is in reference to the City of Port Arthur's | submission of the Proposed consolidation of Port Arthur and :
for the enlarged area. Your submission, pursuant ro Section 5 ~ of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, was received on February 24, 1982. As you requested, we have given expedited consideration
The City's Proposed consolidation with Griffing Park is tied to its Proposed 4-2-2-1 election Plan for the enlarged city. As you know, that Plan has already been scrutinized by the three-judge court for the District of Columbia, and that court rejected the majority-vote feature for the at-large seats. In the conduct of our Preclearance functions under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, we traditionally have considered ourselves to be a surrogate of the district court, seeking to make the kind of decision we believe the court would make if the matter were before it. In that role, therefore, as well as in our role as 4 party to that lawsuit, we are bound by the district court's decision.
Your request that we preclear the 4-2-2-1 Plan essentially asks us to overturn the district court's decision, This we have no authority to do. However, even if we had the authority to make
context in which the at-large features of the 4-2-2-1 plan would operate.
In light of these circumstances, and on the basis of other information available to us, including the evidence of record and the decision of the court in Port Arthur, Texas v, United States, 517 F. Supp. 987 (D.D.C. » Prob. juris, noted, 50 U.S.L.W. 3586 (January 25, 1982), we are unable to conclude that the Proposed voting changes are free of a racially discriminatory Purpose or effect. Accordingly, on
No. J-6 (Mar. 12, 1982)
I
DOJ Letter of Objection - Jefferson Co. =
———
behalf of the Attorney General, I must interpose an objection under
Section 5 to Port Arthur's proposed consolidation with Griffing Park
and the proposed election plan (4-2-2-1 plan) for the enlarged area,
because of the fact that the proposed election plan incorporates the
majority-vote requirement for the two non-mayoral at-large seats.
The City, through its counsel Mr. Welch, has also proposed
that, in any event, the Attorney General might preclear the consolida-
tion and 4-2-2-1 plan on the condition that ithe City is successful
before the Supreme Court in overturning the decision of the three-
Judge court. We know of no authority for the granting of such a
‘conditional preclearance, and it would appear to us that, by
operation of Section 5 itself, preclearance would be final absent
an objection within 60 days of the submission. See, e.g., Morris
v. Gressette, 432 U.S. 491 (1977). Accordingly, such action on our
part would be neither appropriate nor effective. We do note, how-
ever, that the Supreme Court's decision in the pending litigation
presumably will decide whether the majority-vote feature of
the at-large posts is entitled to Section 5 preclearance. Once
that decision is rendered by the Court, the City will be free
to resubmit the proposed consolidation with 'Griffing Park along
with such proposed election plan for the enlarged area as may
appear appropriate in the context of that decision.
Of course, as provided by Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act, you have the right to seek a declaratory judgment regarding
this matter from the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia that these changes neither have the
purpose nor will have the effect of denying .or abridging the
right to vote on account of race, color or membership in a
language minority group. However, until such a judgment from the
District of Columbia Court is obtained, the effect of the objec~
tion by the Attorney General here is to make the proposed consol-
idation of Port Arthur and Griffing Park, as well as the proposed
election plan for the enlarged city (the 4-2-2-1 plan), legally
unenforceable. |
Sincerely,
yo
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
Lavon L. Jones, Esq.
Assistant Criminal District
Attorney
P. 0. Box 2553
Beaumont, Texas 77704
Dear Mr. Jones:
This 1s in reference to the dissolution of the Beaumont Independent School District: the creation of a common school district; and its attachment to the South Park Independent School District in Jefferson County, Texas, submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973¢. We received your submission on August 22, 1983. Although we noted your request for expedited consideration, we have been unable to respond until this time.
We have given careful consideration to the information you have provided, as well as comments and information provided by other interested parties. We also have considered the evidence of record concerning the litigation pending in United States v. Texas Fducation Agency, 699 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. y, cert. denled, 52 U.8.L.W. 3228"(U.3. Oct, 3, 1983).
Our analysis of all available information shows that, at present, the City of Beaumont is divided Into two school districts——the Beaumont Independent School District and the South Park Independent School District. Both districts elect a Seven-member school board at-large. In the Beaumont Independent School District, which is h0-percent black, blacks have been able to elect three of the seven school board members; in the South Park Independent School District, which is 30-percent black, blacks have been unable to elect any of the seven members to the school board.
District, and its integrated school board, and annexing that area to the South Park Independent School District. The enlarged school district would be 36-percent black and would elect 1ts school board on an at-large basis.
DOJ Letter of Objection - Jefferson Co.
No..J-7 “(Oct.20, 1983)
Do
Our information is that voting along racial lines exists in these elections and that blacks have been able to elect candidates of their choice in the ho-percent Beaumont Independent School District only by utilizing the technique of single-shot voting. Our analysis also has revealed a widespread concern among minorities and others that the decrease in the black percentage of the population resulting from the annexation to South Park of the Beaumont constituency will have a significant adverse impact on the ability of blacks to elect representatives of thelr choice to the surviving school board under an at-large election system.
Under Section 5 the county 1s required to demonstrate that the proposed change affecting voting "does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color." 42 U.S.C. 1973c. See Georgia v. United States, 411 U.S. 526 (1973). See also the Procedures for the Administration of Section § (28 C.P.R. 51.39(e)). While the submitting jurisdiction's burden usually is to show that the change will not "lead to a retrogression in the position of raclal minorities with respect to thelr effective exercise of the electoral franchise" (Reer v,. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 141 (1975)), in the case of an annexation such as that now before us, the proposed change would not have the prohibited effect "as long as the post- annexation electoral system fairly recognizes the minority's political potential" (City of Richmond v. United States, 422 U.S. 358, 378 {1975)). In other words, the system of elections after the change should be one that would afford minorities "represen- tation reasonably equivalent to their political strength in the enlarged community." 1d. at 370.
nonretrogressive for black voters or that the election System will afford blacks "representation reasonably equivalent" to their political strength in the post-annexation school district. Accordingly, on behalf of the Attorney General, I must interpose an objection to the proposed dissolution of the Beaumont Indepen- dent School District, the creation of a common school district, and its attachment to the South Park Independent School District.
’ ®
3
In this regard, courts consistently have recognized that the Voting Rights Act does not prohibit the territorial expansion of jurisdictions but that such expansions may "be approved only on the condition that modifications calculated Lo neutralize to the extent possible any adverse effect upon the political participation of black voters are adopted, 1. a. that the [Jurisdiction] shift from an at-large to a ward system of electing its [officials]."” City of Petersburg v. United States, 354 F. Supp 1021, 1031 (D.:B.¢, 157°), aff'd, 310 1.8. 663 11973). «See also, City of Port Arthur v. United States, 51 U.S.L.W. 4033 (U.S. Dec. 13, 1982); Filly of Tome vv: United States, 446 U.S. 156 (1980); City of Richmond v. United States, supra. Therefore, should the Board of Trustees of the South Park Independent School District undertake to adopt an appropriate election plan for its expanded Jurisdiction (see Tex. Educ. Code Ann. §23.024 (Vernon 1983), as amended by Senate Bill No. 1304 (1983)), such action would provide grounds for reconsideration and withdrawal of the objection.
Of course, as provided by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, you have the right to seek a declaratory Judgment from the United States District Court for the District of
account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. However, until the objection is withdrawn or a Judgment from the District of Columbia Court is obtained, the effect of the objection by the Attorney General is to make the dissolution of the Beaumont Independent School District, the creation of a common school district, and its attachment to the South Park Independent School District legally unenforceable. 28 C.r.R.
To enable this Department to meet its responsibility to enforce the Voting Rights Act, please inform us of the course of action Jefferson County plans to take with respect to this matter. If you have any questions, feel free to call Carl W. Gabel (202-724-8388), Director of the Section 5 Unit of the Voting Section.
Sincerely,
Wm. Pradford Reynolds
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
. mie nu nu der
'R
a. nmr 3 OT LL Lt CE Tp
ECR NNER e vo 5 v= ES hl za DENPVASE POS Pogo vrvhess SF ropur eos EM AER i
- CN -—— -
HR LR My aT Rien SES LEE RS + 5d Lo? Ea RR A 5
ve Nani mr om HEEL TRAN Sod TR Ak SL NT Taam
AL TON GLY So I Cy a TF Ve NR RD ATS NTI
Mr. Holman Lit
City Attorney
City of Tei-g GLiy
Po Je Trawer 25:4
Yeras City, Tenan
Llenscern
Zz THE
77590
Leary Fir, Liliensrern:
0
Vi a5.0%) EOVTLL RE
in Jexay Ciey, su
ACE fo Section 5 dF |}
«90. You sinel anion was
Wr, 1, necura
eons
LER LMS I
LESS ao]
elerence
rie ¢loe
Légratiou hae boen 5
La Lie grucedimai
an of Secidon 6
- ¢
be
Alter a
able faces gng clire
resevant declsiong
‘
Rite
’
»
»
4
| 3
4
a”
or
le wo emvieduds an
flatts Act ©
have a vaclally diseria
oes § 4 ‘51.8 Ye AGG df
erineleied fu 4
ance with yoo
carelul eranivation of all cl
vaistances sud an analygis of che
the federal COUrtr, we Are
VE ual. under
Wat the aewberec ast
natocy effcct.
ave given great vieipht to ©
Lo che nud
tion of City
baltted to the Attorney General
red post proe
Conmigsioners
ww ating R
conn leied
luynks Ser of
an Februayy 2,
¥ request expedlted
iven vo this submission peY05
suidelines For the adming-
{233 Coup. al.22).
12 avall-
ie VotLing
Drov «ulon will og
In our
hie factors
and the auvmerasus cages
Including vie
in the arcs, tie o lececoral
&¥oups lavolvad, the SLES
the desvoec
rertatives
GT respunsivene
rhe nessa of tL
vio
i2EC Ve Resester, 412
Ca wale it {wp gly
L8E0ry of Zovermmen
walling rexarding
US, 7535 (1573),
en Ilse,
tal discrimination
bistory of the niaorivy
i¢6 oi racial vlacsvoting,
So oF the elected Yenre-
Lie winerity grouns, tie
the change in
DOJ Letter of Objection - Galveston Co.
No. G-1 (Mar. 10, 1976)
R
——- EE TE om Int mr ctrtr mn ain [+ remeimtsb mismo +: 21 vor mega SE BA hs he clea Lt ET I OU LR I nT
Lory
a re Sam LR A Td Lad AL EFE BT ER SV ta FRIRII AT Qe Les me ME: Lalit £ RBA» a
rrr war I pire
- LT ~.
Bas Wid RTA RAN Ta 1 A VAT TI RARER RANGE ei 7 i Cr i de ee Ce SC ES Le Ded ninnrhe va oof de RYT BTR {COA Cas Rl iia
, re - ta Wa va, Aa PAS SS PLP so ad EY TAT le PLT ih oI En OT RC, SC iia bE 3
. 3 . ei
[% {
Y ’ I . (2 oy oa AER 1) . ha +
“iy ET LE » . 0 “ae, . gh
“a
"
AA ain Dd SB ws A St 02 ba Vl oy)
Pn EELTHRER 3 SI TA LRT Lt 0 AOE PTR : 3%
. RAR roan yan
w
FA
'
- .
Na 34 v
‘
«N
.
Tw . GaN questiow, and thy urevense of eytrevatiog factors, = a oo as an sr-large Ziesrara GCE, Hae alr flier wv. old then, 495 1.24 199) (hoe oy
i
%
‘a ee . RTE p o- A 1 Li) Rete . . I
ad ta HYPO. Ze piviver, 3} 1 Vo Sup, Hi 5,0, i; "ie
—
4
bnder ie atubity Bi dnd itaunutinges } NUR on bet oii or Lhe SAL OV Cen val ILRernYee gn ORJueting 2 in. heres Aral i ovERING uf the
yorer i: pa MLL ; AL AVY] Rights s0C Detmite 8 i) iariadiziiag va sesh supvavol wi casuyes wibjecy ra lg Soabion. 5 by tie inte ar Slings YValciet Goert revs i han T3miTie. ae REE TRremvetive of whether Un y °° .s® ae “ipa xr » 4 + ot . - "ve .
Vell orm SING Leen redral ined 1a the Alloticy Uviierai,
Liucuvely, :
§
n
s
P
r
a
g
g
i
o
n
b
a
h
i
a
e
d
d
u
S
2
0
0
si
s
x
2 h
l
C
L
- ro
,
LE
|
- . . v . uve ti ——— -
Sn ae ama an tt ms a
i : p » _
” my ooh ah 0 lf RNAPII INS Hn for A a as «al hint amo 0 7
.
4 AL fh 0 Lh
Odmasa, Texas 79760
of kha County lidependent School District, *
oh hor 0 Pr Ag vg Attorney Ceneral pmrsuant to Section 5
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended. Your
syhaission wid omplated on Hay ¥, 1976.
Mek Sey ee : : information Titan = age given careful consideration to the
fr a ‘as well as Bureau of the Census data and
ther interested parties. Our
on {cans and blacks constitute
the population of the Ector County
that the Board of Trustees is
1 bloe voting may exist.
indicate that
2 ‘minor
W)
, 766~67 (1973), Yrimmer Vv. toKe {then ,
Sth Cir. 1973), aff'd aud nom.
Board v. Marshall, 424 U.8. 636
209 (5th Cir. 1978).
+ 3305 {
School
-DO0J Letter of Objection - Ector Co
No. E-1 (July 7, 1976)
% a L £
Ee % of the Voting Righta Act placas upon the
aubiitting suthority the burden of proving wat a biEniensd
racially discriminatory purpose or effect, (Son Geox itn ve.
re np‘
Decanse of the potential ‘for diluting black voutng strength
inherent in the use of numbered post and majority vote
requirements ander circumstances such as exist in tie lLctor
County Lide t School District and hecauss the BR aay
hae no compelling reason for thelr use, we axe
upable a SeaTiude that the burden of proof has beun sustained
and ‘that the imposition of these requirements, in the context
of an ateiarge olection system, will not have a racially
discriminatory sffect. Accordingly, on behalf of the Attorney
Genaral, XI must incerposs an ohjection to the numbered post
majority vote requirements fox the election of Trustees of
tha Xotox County, Idepandent School District,
Fie pp course; an ‘provided by section 5 of the Satay
Rights Act, you have the right to seek a declaratory judgment
from the United States Distrist Court for the district of
© Columbia that these changas have neltiher the purpose nox
will have the effect of deaying or abridging the right to
. Vote Oh BCGOUAL. of Ee color, oF wembexship in a language
the Procedures for the minecity group, Ta addition
7 tion of Sadtion § Hi C.P.R. 51.2(b) and (c),
LTE and Sal peruit you £0 request tha ittorney General
to reconsider the objection... However, until the cbjmotion is CRRA or the 3 Jnagmant ‘fron the ‘Dletrict of Columbia Court
h mpg Biggar affect of the Attornsy Ceberal'a objection ia
tp, kaka the Wher | pon 2 ad majority ote, FaSuirpranta
et 4 h
oy ¢. TR -
RP ”d wr Np Ee - . wa En og
EACLE [IVE SRV A ON a OF TR a
sy rd fons ot Sisoazely,
HEU CRI Sr SR RAS SR A ICR 8 Sf BE hy 2 le RR ’
Wey oN “ "wi Re nA 1 ( SP. SE 2
brew Ss. Days TIX
radii 8 Attornay Cental
Civil Rights Division
E
T
E
vv
X
i
n
e
3 3
{
A
L>, dares k. Malley - Te 4 sn €uperintendoent
riddland izxdependent School agate Aug 6 1976 Ligtriect
702 .orth it, Streczt
iddland, Texas
This is {in
and majority vota
79701
reference to the chance toc nuiberel post re uirenents for the election of the Board of “Tustecs of tho tidland Independent Bchool istrict, Wdcland, Texas, subnitted to the Attorney General pursuant to Section 85 of the voting rights ict of 1865, as amended. Your subrission was corpleted on June 7, 1976.
Wo have given caroful consideration to the inforratien turnishod by you and to connents fror: intereeted parties. Ch the basis of our analyeis of this inforisation ans of , relevant judicial
we must mrkier the
decisions, we are unable to conclude, as Voting kichts sect, that these rezuiremantg wlli not have a Giscrininatory effect on the basis of race, eclor, or halborshin in a languace Finority croup, Ir. this regard, we have roted the stated purpose of the numbered post reguirenent to Prevest single shot voting and that racial bloc voting appears to exist in thu alatrict (62c Lunston v. f£cott, 336 I. Supp 206, 212 n, 9 (L.D.K.C. 1972) 5.
. Avcordingly, on behalf of the Attorney General, 1 must interpose an cbjaction to the isplenentation of tha nuibered posts and majority vote reyuirenents for the election of tne Roard of “Iustees of Midland Independent School District, I note that <hough the evidance with regard to racizl bloc voting is, to sora extent, conflicting, the procedural guidelines for the adrinistration of Seetion 3 rrovidc, “If the evidarce as to the purjose or effect of the change is conflicting, and the Atterney General is unable to resolve the conflict within the 60 day period, he shall, consistent with the alove~described burden of procf applicable 4n the Listrict Court, enter an objection and so notify the submitiing authority.” 8t C.P.R. 51.18,
—
~DOJ Letter of Objection - Midland Co. __
panmss re en No. M-1 (Aug.6, 1976)
h
e
«
w
e
e
r
g
i
ag
*
3
Of course, ag Srovidel by Section 5 of the Voting Rights 2ct, you have the right to seek a declaratory judg- - ment from the District Court for the Cistrict of Colunbia that thease changes neither have the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language ninority group. Until such Judgment is rendered by the Court, however, the effect of the objection by the Attorney General is to make the changes in question legally unenforceable,
le Fat %
J. Stanley Pottinger =
assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
he — — i. . EE iid Se NE SPO a ae cocoa. - ce wa - .- ce Ge ——" 0: mess eema— 4 a oi
:
. - . on a— nn
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION
LULAC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
NO. MO-88-CA-154
MATTOX, et al.,
*
oF
oF
F
F
¥
*
*
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF
CASES CONCERNING DISCRIMINATION
ON THE BASIS OF RACE/ETHNICITY
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court take judicial
notice of the following cases and the findings of fact that the
cases made. F.R.Ev. 201:
HARRIS COUNTY
Hamilton v. Rodgers et al., 791 F.2d 439 (3th Cir. 1986). The Houston Fire Department violated Title VII because its supervisory employees 1) "froze out" a black employee by requiring him to endure inferior work assignments and failing to adequately train him and 2) engaged in racist antics and slurs and allowed other workers to do so.
United States v. Board of Trustees of Crosby Independent School District, 424 7.24 625 (53th Cir. 1970). "[Tlhere are two groups of schools or two campuses in the Crosby Independent School District. One is substantially all white and the other all black." Id. at 626.
Ross v. Dyer, 312 F.2d 191 (53th Cir. 1963), further proceedings sub. nom., Ross v Echols, 317 F. Supp. 512 (S. D. Tex. 1970), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 434 F.2d 1140 (1971), remand, 457 F. Supp. 18 (1977), affirmed, 699 F.2d 218 (1983). The Houston Independent School District was Segregated. "Following the traditional pattern of Southern schools, the whole system was segregated. This was not the result of spurious gerrymandering. It is open and frank.
l
Separate zones for white children and Negroes were - and still are - maintained." 312 F.2d at 192.
Derrington v. Plummer, 240 F.2d 922 (5th Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 353 u.S. 439 (1957). Harris County was enjoined from allowing a tenant to exclude blacks from the tenant's cafeteria in the Harris County courthouse.
Beal v. Holcombe, 193 F.2d 384 (5th Cir. 1952). The City of Houston maintained segregated parks.
Willie v. Harris County, Texas, 202 F. Supp. 549 (S. D. Tex. 1962). Harris County maintained segregated parks.
DALLAS COUNTY
Tasby v. Estes, 517 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1975), cert, denied, 423 U.S. 837 (1957). Dallas Independent School District has a long history of discriminating against blacks and hispanics, as outlined in Tasby and the Brown v. Rippy cases, described at 517 F.2d at 95. This required remediation through a desegregation plan.
Davis wv. City of Dallas, 483 F. Supp. 54 (N. D. Tex. 1979}, reconsideration, 487 F. Supp. 389 (1980). The City of Dallas Police Department's policy of discriminating against a class of black men who sought employment with the Department violated Title Vil.
Hawkins v. Coleman, 376 F. Supp. 1330 (N. D. Tex. 1974). Dallas Independent School District discriminated against a class of black students because it applied discipline in a racist manner. Dallas Independent School District exhibits "institutional racism. " Id. at 1338.
TARRANT COUNTY
Jackson v. Rawdon, 235 F.2d 93 (5th Cir. 1956). Mansfield Independent School District did not allow blacks to attend high school in the District. Instead, black high school students were bussed to Fort Worth.
TRAVIS COUNTY
District), 564 F.2d 162 (5th Cir. 1977), rehearing denied, 579 F.2d 910 (1978), cert. denied, 443 U.S. 915 (1979). Austin Independent School District intentionally discriminated against blacks, 564 F.2d. at 165, and Mexican-Americans. Id. at 170-4.
The Plaintiff in Derrington is also a Plaintiff in this case.
2
Blackshear Residents Organization v. Housing Authority of the City of Austin, 347 F. Supp. 1138 (W. D. Tex. 1971). The City of Austin has a history of official, de jure discrimination against blacks and hispanics in housing. Id. at 1142. The Austin Housing Authority and HUD violated the rights of a class of blacks and hispanics by planning to place a housing project in a neighborhood of minority concentration in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act.
JEFFERSON COUNTY
Beaumont Independent School District wv. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 504 F.2d 855 (3th Cir. 1974). "Up to 1963 « + « the School District assigned students and faculty on the basis of race through the use of dual attendance zones. "Id. at 856. Judicial intervention was necessary because the District’s voluntarily implemented freedom of choice plan did not improve matters.
Fayson v. Beard, 134 F. Supp. 379 (E. D. Tex. 1955). Phe City of Beaumont maintained segregated parks.
GALVESTON COUNTY
Smiley v. Blevins, 453 F. Supp. 463 (S. D. Tex. 1978), reconsideration, 514 F. Supp. 1248 (1981). The Court could not find that the Galveston Independent School District had achieved unitary status in 1978, 453 F. Supp. at 483, or 1981, 514 F. Supp. at 1256, in litigation that began in 1959.
Robinson v. Vollert, 602 F.2d 87 (3th Cir. 1979). Department of Health, Education and Welfare withdrew Emergency School Aid Act from the Galveston Independent School District. This was not an abuse of discretion because the "schools that were substantially racially unbalanced continued to exist in GISD and the GISD had in the past operated a de jure dual school system." Id. at 94.
LUBBOCK COUNTY
United States v. Lubbock Independent School District, 455 F. Supp. 1223 (N. D. Tex. 1978), aff'd, 601 F.2d 585 (5th Cir. 1979). LISD
A —————————
has a history of official, de jure discrimination against blacks and hispanics which included segregated school facilities. 455 F. Supp. at 1225-6. Through 1978, "LISD applied and implemented the neighborhood school policy in an intentionally discriminatory manner with a resulting Segregatory effect." Id. at 1226.
ECTOR COUNTY
United States v. CRUCIAL, 722 F.2d 1183 (5th Cir. 1983). “Ector County ISD ‘not only continued to fail to meet its duty to
3
dismantle its dual school system, but actually increased the segregation in its schools of both Blacks and Mexican-Americans. These actions were intentional. Id. at 1185. (quoting unpublished district court opinion)
AJ
MCLENNAN COUNTY
Arivizu v. Waco Independent School District, 373 F. Supp. 1264 (W. D. Tex. (1973), rev'd in part, remanded in part, 495 F. 2d 499 (5th Cir. 1974). Despite an earlier federal court order to compel desegregation, over eight years later the Waco Independent School District was still Segregated. Facilities were still identifiably white, black and hispanic.
MIDLAND COUNTY
United States v. Midland Independent School District, 334 P. Supp. 147 (W. D. Tex. 1971), rev'd, 519 F.2d 60 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U. S. 910 (1976). Midland Independent School District intentionally discriminated against blacks and hispanics.
Respectfully submitted:
GARRETT, THOMPSON & CHANG
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
A Partnership of Professional
Corporations
William L. Garrett
Brenda Hull Thompson
8300 Douglas #800
Dallas, Texas 75225
(214)369-1952
LEAD COUNSEL
ROLANDO L. RIOS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
201 N. St. Mary's #521
San Antonio, Texas 78205
(512)222-2102
SUSAN FINKELSTEIN
STAFF ATTORNEY
TEXAS RURAL LEGAL AlD, INC.
201 N. St. Mary’s #600
San Antonio, Texas 78205
(512)222-2478
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Susan Finkelstein, do hereby certify that a true and
correct copy of Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice of Cases"
Concerning Discrimination on the Basis of Race/Ethnicity has been
mailed via certified mail with correct postage to:
ATTORNEY
REPRESENTING
Plaintiff - Intervenors
Edward B. Cloutman, III Jesse Oliver MULLINAX, WELLS, BAAB & Joan Winn White CLOUTMAN, P. C. Fred Tinsley 3301 Elm
Dallas, TX 75226-9222
214/939-9222 FAX: 214/939-9229
E. Brice Cunningham Jesse Oliver Attorney at Law
Joan Winn White 777 S. R. L. Thornton Fwy., Suite 121 Fred Tinsley Dallas, TX 75203
214/428-3793
Julius Levonne Chambers Houston Lawyers Assn. Sherrilyn A. Ifill
Francis Williams NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Rev. William Lawson Fund, Inc.
99 Hudson St., 16th floor
New York, NY 10013
212/219-1900
Gabrielle K. McDonald
MATTHEWS & BRANSCOMB
301 Congress Ave., Suite 2050
Austin, TX 78701
512/320-5055
Defendants
Jim Mattox
Mary F. Keller
Renea Hicks
Javier Guajardo
Attorney General’s Office
P. O. Box 12548
Austin, TX 78711
512/463-2085
Defendant-Intervenors
J. Eugene Clements
E. O'Neill
Evelyn V. Keys
PORTER & CLEMENTS
700 Louisiana, Suite 3500
Houston, TX 77002-2730
713/226-0600
Darrell Smith
Attorney at Law
10999 Interstate Highway 10,
Suite 905
San Antonio, TX 78230
512/641-9944
Michael J. Wood
Attorney at Law
440 Louisiana, Suite 200
Houston, TX 77002
713/228-5105
Mark H. Dettman
County Attorney
P. O. Box 2559
Midland, TX 79702
915/688-1084
Ken Oden
Travis County Attorney
P. O. Box 1748
Austin, TX 78767
512/473-9415
Houston Lawyers Assn.
Francis Williams
Rev. William Lawson
Texas Legislative
Black Caucus
All Defendants
Judge Sharolyn Wood
of Harris County
Judge Sharolyn Wood
of Harris County
Judge Sharolyn Wood
of Harris County
Midland County &
District Judges
Travis County District
Judges
David R. Richards
Special Counsel
600 W. 7th St.
Austin, TX 78701
Robert H. Mow, Jr.
HUGHES & LUCE
2800 Momentum Place
1717 Main St.
Dallas, TX 75201
214/939-5500
Travis County District
Judges
Judge Harold Entz
of Dallas County
each at the correct address on this 5th day of September, 1989.
be Sw
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION
LULAC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
No. MO-88-CA-154
vs.
MATTOX, et al.,
*
oF
oF
oF
%
*
*
*
*
Defendants.
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF
VOTING RIGHTS CASES
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court take judicial
notice of the following cases and the findings of fact that the
cases made. F.R.Ev. 201:
HARRIS COUNTY
CASE NAMES: Greater Houston Civic Council v Mann, 440 F. Supp. 696 (S. D. Tex. 1977) (constitutional challenge to City of Houston's at large positions in a 5-3-1 plan); Campos v City of Baytown, 840 F.2d 1240 (5th Cir. 1988), rehearing denied, 849 F.2d 1240, cert. denied, (No. 88-606, June 26, 1989)
GINGLES FACTORS
COMPACTNESS :
* blacks are concentrated in Councilmanic districts B & D, there is one area where Hispanics are concentrated Mann, 440 F. Supp. at 702
* Hispanics and Blacks are sufficiently concentrated and compact to form a single member district Campos, 840 F.2d at 1242, 1244
COHESIVENESS:
* Blacks and Hispanics are cohesive, based on Brischetto
1
analysis of 5 elections Cam os, 840 F.2d at 1242, 1245-8
WHITE BLOC VOTE
* Anglos vote sufficiently as a bloc as to normally defeat the minority vote Campos, 840 F.2d at 1242, 1248-9
SENATE FACTORS
POLARIZATION:
* polarization exists in City of Baytown Cam os, 804 F.2d at 1242, 1245-9
EFFECTS OF DISCRIMINATION (SOCIO-ECONOMIC STRATIFICATION) :
* Blacks and Hispanics suffer lingering socio-economic effects of discrimination Cam os, 840 F.2d at 1249
EXTENT MINORITIES ELECTED TO PUBLIC OFFICE:
* no minority ever elected to Baytown City Council Campos, 840 F.2d at 1249
DALLAS
CASE NAMES: Lipscomb v Johnson, 459 F.2d 335 (3th Cir. 1972), remand sub nom, Lipscomb v Wise, 399 F. Supp. 782 (N. D. Tex. 1975), rev'd in part, 551 F.2d 1043 (1977), rev'd in part and remanded, 437 us 535 (1978), remand, 583 F.2d 212 (1978) (constitutional challenge to City of Dallas at large system); Graves v Barnes, 343 F. Supp. 704 (W.D Tex. 1972) (three judge court), aff'd in part, rev’d in part sub nom., White v Regester, 412 U.S. 314 (1973), remand, 378 F. Supp. 640 (1974), (three judge court), vacated, 422 U.S. 935 (1975) remand, 408 F. Supp. 1050 (1976) (three judge court) (constitutional challenge to Texas legislative districts); Gilbert v Sterret, 509 F.2d 1389 {Sth Cir. 1975) (constitutional challenge to 1971/1973 Dallas County Commissioners’ precincts); Terrazas v Clements, 581 F. Supp. 1329 (N. D. Tex. 1984)
GINGLES FACTORS
COMPACTNESS::
* 90% of blacks live in inner city area Lipscomb, 399 F. Supp. at 785
* minority population generally lives in central and southern portions of City of Dallas Terrazas, 581 F. Supp. at 1334
COHESIVENESS:
* polarization exists (3 City elections) Lipscomb, 399 F. Supp. at 785-6
* "Blacks and Hispanics regularly form political coalitions, although that, too, is not without exception" Terrazas, 581 F. Supp. at 1353
WHITE BLOC VOTE:
* polarization exists (3 city elections) Lipscomb, 399 F. Supp. at 785-6
SENATE FACTORS
HISTORY OF DISCRIMINATION:
* extensive history of official discrimination against Blacks Lipscomb, 399 F. Supp. at 787
* discrimination has created apathy toward the election process among Hispanics in Dallas Terrazas, 581 F. Supp. at 1349
* difficult for Negroes to register, vote and participate: in democratic process; majority vote, "place" system enhance racial discrimination, large districts make campaigns prohibitively expensive Graves, 343 F. Supp. at 725
POLARIZATION:
* polarization exists (3 city elections) Lipscomb, 399 F. Supp. at 785-6
CANDIDATE SLATING:
* the 2 Blacks who got elected from Dallas County to Texas House of Representatives were the two slated by Dallas Committee for Responsible Government, a white slating organization that did not in good faith represent the needs of the Black community because it did not need Black Support Graves, 343 F. Supp. at 727
* Citizens Charter Association is an effective slating organization that rarely endorses Blacks Lipscomb, 399 F. Supp. at 786-7
EFFECTS OF DISCRIMINATION (SOCIO-ECONOMIC STRATIFICATION):
* lower quality of life in Black inner city area Lipscomb, 399 F. Supp. at 785
* "Dallas Hispanics suffer serious socio-economic
3
disadvantage" Terrazas, 581 F. Supp. at 1349
RACIAL APPEALS IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS:
* Dallas Committee for Responsible Government (a slating organization) conducted racial appeals in white precincts Graves, 343 F. Supp. at 727
EXTENT MINORITIES ELECTED TO PUBLIC OFFICE:
* since Reconstruction, only 2 Blacks from Dallas County elected to Texas House Graves, 343 F. Supp. at 725
* since 1907 only 2 Blacks elected to Dallas city government, both in elections with no white candidates Lipscomb, 399 F. Supp. at 787
* few Hispanic elected officials Terrazas, 581 F. Supp. at 1355
GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSIVENESS TO NEEDS OF MINORITIES:
* Dallas County legislative delegation is not responsive to the needs of Blacks Graves, 343 F. Supp. at 726
BEXAR COUNTY
CASE NAMES: Graves v Barnes, 343 F. Supp. 704 (W.D. Tex. 1972), (three judge court), aff’d in part, rev'd in part sub nom., White Vv__Regester, 412: 'U.s8. 314 (1973), remand, 378 F. Supp. 640 (1974), (three judge court), vacated, 422 U.S. 935 (1975) remand, 408 F. Supp. 1050 (1976) (three judge court) (constitutional challenge to Texas legislative districts)
GINGLES FACTORS
GEOGRAPHIC COMPACTNESS:
* Hispanics are concentrated in the slum area known as the Barrio on the west side of San Antonio. Graves, 343 F. Supp. at 730
COHESIVENESS:
* "The population of the West Side of San Antonio tends to vote overwhelmingly for Mexican-American candidates when running against Anglo-Americans." Graves, 343 F. Supp. at 731
WHITE BLOC VOTE:
* "The record shows that Anglo-Americans tend to vote overwhelmingly against Mexican-American candidates." Graves, 343
4
F. Supp. at 731
* "Mexican-Americans are frozen into permanent political minorities destined for constant defeat at the hands of the controlling political majorities." Graves, 343 F. Supp. at 732
SENATE FACTORS
HISTORY OF DISCRIMINATION:
* "continued and continuing discriminations against Mexican-Americans in Bexar County" Graves, 343 F. Supp. at 733
* "the poll tax and the most restrictive voter registration procedures in the nation have operated to effectively deny Mexican- Americans access to the political processes in Texas even longer than the Blacks were formally denied access by the white primary." Graves, 343 F. Supp. at 731
* campaigns in countywide races in Bexar County are so expensive that Hispanics cannot participate. Graves, 343 F. Supp.. at 731
POLARIZATION:
* polarization exists Graves, 343 F. Supp. at 731
EFFECTS OF DISCRIMINATION (SOCIO-ECONOMIC STRATIFICATION):
* Hispanics live "in the most seriously straitened and deprived circumstances ... [and] ... face an often insurmountable cultural disorientation" Graves, 343 F. Supp. at 730
* Hispanics receive less education, have low incomes and are overrepresented in the ranks of laborers Graves, 343 F. Supp. at 730
EXTENT MINORITIES ELECTED TO PUBLIC OFFICE:
* Since 1880 only five Hispanics served in State legislature Graves, 343 F. Supp. at 732
GOVERNMENT RESPONSIVENESS TO NEEDS OF MINORITIES:
TARRANT COUNTY
CASE NAMES: Graves v Barnes, 378 F. Supp. 640 (W.D. Texas 1974) (three judge court), vacated, 422 U.S. 935 (1975), remand, 408 F. Supp. 1050 (1976) (three judge court) (constitutional challenge to Texas legislative districts)
GINGLES FACTORS
COMPACTNESS :
* Blacks and Hispanics are "to a large extent, concentrated in identifiable geographic areas" Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 644
SENATE FACTORS
HISTORY OF DISCRIMINATION:
* "Tarrant County ... has not historically been generous to its minority population. ® Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 644-5
* discrimination has created apathy among minority voters Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 647
CANDIDATE SLATING:
* slating groups exist Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 646
* slating groups unavailable to minorities; cannot be elected without slating Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 647-8
RACIAL APPEALS IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS:
* campaign appeals against forced busing Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 645
EXTENT MINORITIES ELECTED TO PUBLIC OFFICE:
* even Blacks with support of labor union cannot win; all three Black candidates for Texas House from Tarrant County lost Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 646
* even with support of labor unions, Brown candidates cannot win; both Brown candidates for Texas House from Tarrant County have lost Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 646
GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSIVENESS TO NEEDS OF MINORITIES:
* Tarrant County legislative delegation indifferent to many issues important to minority community Graves, 378 F. Supp. at. 646-7
TRAVIS COUNTY
CASE NAMES: Graves v Barnes, 378 F. Supp. 640, 652-3 (W. D. Tex.
1974) (three judge court), vacated, 442 U.S. 935 (1975), remand, 408
F. Supp. 1050 (1976) (three judge court) (constitutional challenge
to Texas legislative districts)
GINGLES FACTORS
COMPACTNESS :
* "nearly all minority residents in Austin live on the east
side of Interstate Highway 35" - geographic and social isolation
from whites exists Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 652
COHESIVENESS:
* "blacks and Mexican-Americans are, as individual groups, politically cohesive" Qverton, 871 F.2d at 536
SENATE FACTORS
HISTORY OF DISCRIMINATION
* when minorities succeeded in city and school board elections, both governmental bodies changed from plurality at large to majority vote requirements, which "shut off serious Black or Brown challenges until the late 1960’s" Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 653
CANDIDATE SLATING:
* informal slating mechanisms are unavailable to minority community Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 652
RACIAL APPEALS IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS:
* racial appeals in campaigns caused minorities to be reluctant to run for office Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 652
EXTENT MINORITIES ELECTED TO PUBLIC OFFICE:
* no Blacks or Hispanics ever elected to Texas legislature from Travis County Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 652
* one Black on each of City Council and School Board are aberrational Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 653
GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSIVENESS TO NEEDS OF MINORITIES:
* Travis County legislative delegation is indifferent to needs of minority community Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 653
7
JEFFERSON COUNTY
CASE NAMES: Graves v Barnes, 378 F. Supp. 640, 648-50 (W. D. Tex. 1974) (three judge court), vacated, 422 U.S. 935 (1975), remand, 408 F. Supp. 1050 (1976) (three judge court) (constitutional challenge to Texas legislative districts); City of Port Arthur, Texas v United States, et al., 517 F. Supp. 987 (D.D.C. 1981), aff'd, 459 US 159 (1982) (Section 5 challenge to City of Port Arthur's annexation/consolidation and district/at large plan)
GINGLES FACTORS
COMPACTNESS::
* "Black community remains concentrated in the western portion of the City" despite urban renewal projects outside of that area City of Port Arthur, 517 r. Supp. at 1006;
* Hispanics concentrated in census tracts 54-56 and 63-68 City of Port Arthur, 517 F. Supp. at 1008
COHESIVENESS
* polarization exists City of Port Arthur, 517 F. at 1006- 8
WHITE BLOC VOTE:
* polarization exists City of Port Arthur, 517 F. Supp. at 1006-8
SENATE FACTORS
HISTORY OF DISCRIMINATION:
* blatant discrimination in housing, education, employment Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 648-9
* history of discrimination against Blacks City of Port Arthur, 517 F. Supp. at 995, 1004-6
* appointment of white advisory boards from newly annexed areas with no parallel minority boards City of Port Arthur, 517 F. Supp. at 1018-9
* use of racist tactics in 1966, including armed white deputies at polls in Black neighborhoods Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 649
* discrimination in voting practices was "exacerbated by the majority vote and residency requirements ... because these tend to
8
promote head-to-head contests between black and white candidates
and undermine ... single-shot voting" City of Port Arthur, 517 F.
Supp. at 1015
POLARIZATION:
* "severe polarization ... has existed at least since 1969" City of Port Arthur, 517 F. Supp. at 1007, n. 136
* severe polarization exists City of Port Arthur, 459 US
at 163
DISCRIMINATORY PURPOSE IN ELECTION PLANS:
* although City’s annexation plans did not intentionally discriminate on the basis of race, there was a discriminatory purpose in adopting 4-4-1 and 8-0-1 Plans City of Port Arthur, 517 F. Supp. at 1011, 1019-3
* discriminatory purpose City of Port Arthur, 459 US at 163
CANDIDATE SLATING:
* labor union support is prerequisite to successful candidacy; union has never supported a Black, with the stated reason of "racial hostility of the predominantly white membership" Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 649
RACIAL APPEALS IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS:
* "municipal elections ... evidenced unremitting racial hostility" (City of Port Arthur, 517 F. Supp. 995
EXTENT MINORITIES ELECTED TO PUBLIC OFFICE:
* "no Black man or woman ... has been elected to a district or county-wide office since the turn of the century" Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 648
* few Blacks elected City of Port Arthur, 517 F. Supp. at 1006-8, 1015-6
GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSIVENESS TO NEEDS OF MINORITIES:
* Jefferson County legislative delegation totally unresponsive to needs of minority community; unaware of those needs Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 649
* City has been "inattentive to the problems of providing Blacks with city services and jobs" City of Port arthur, 517 F. Supp. at 1015
LUBBOCK COUNTY
CASE NAMES: Graves v Barnes, 378 F. Supp. 640, 653-655 (W.D. Tex. 1974) (three judge court), remanded, 422 U.S. 935 (1975), 408 F. Supp. 1050 (1976) (three judge court) (constitutional challenge to Texas legislative districts); Jones v City of Lubbock, 727 F.2d 364 (5th Cir. 1984) (challenge under constitution and Section 2 to City of Lubbock’s at large system)
GINGLES FACTORS
COMPACTNESS :
* "the bulk of the Black and Brown population resides in the northeast quadrant" with some Blacks in the southeast and some Browns in the northwest Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 653
* "over 75% of the Black and Mexican-American population resides" in the eastern/northeastern parts of the City Jones, 727 F.2d at 368
COHESIVENESS
* polarization exists Jones, 727 F.2d at 380-1
WHITE BLOC VOTE:
* white bloc voting consistently causes defeat of minority candidates Jones, 727 F.2d at 384
SENATE FACTORS
HISTORY OF DISCRIMINATION:
* whites saw Mexican-Americans as ‘a species of farm implement’ Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 653
* Blacks and Browns have suffered and still suffer from the effects of discrimination Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 653
* "the City of Lubbock discriminated against Blacks and Mexican-Americans" Jones, 727 F.2d at 383
* discrimination has resulted in apathy among minority voters Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 655
?
* Lubbock "at large system aggravates the political disadvantage of the City’s minorities." (at large, majority vote, staggered terms, numbered Posts, no single shot voting, no residency requirements for candidates) Jones, 727 F.2d at 383
10
POLARIZATION:
* polarization exists in City elections - studies by Charles Johnson and Robert Brischetto Jones, 727 F.2d at 380-1
EFFECTS OF DISCRIMINATION (SOCIO-ECONOMIC STRATIFICATION) :
* minorities have little education, low incomes, high incidence of poverty, poor quality housing Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 654-5
* "socioeconomic disadvantage resulting from general discrimination" Jones, 727 F.2d at 383
EXTENT MINORITIES ELECTED TO PUBLIC OFFICE:
* only one Mexican-American elected in ten years (to office of JP) Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 655
* no Blacks or Mexican-Americans ever elected to City Council; only two Mexican-Americans ever elected to any public office in the area Jones, 727 F.2d at 368
GALVESTON COUNTY
CASE NAMES: Graves v Barnes, 378 F. Supp. 640, 661-2 (W.D. Tex. 1974) (three judge court), vacated, 422 U.S. 935 (1975), remand, 408 F. Supp. 1050 (1976) (three judge court) (constitutional challenge to Texas legislative districts)
SENATE FACTORS
HISTORY OF DISCRIMINATION
* Galveston County legislative district gerrymandered "intentionally to thwart the growth of Black political strength in that neighborhood" Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 661-2
MCLENNAN COUNTY
CASE NAMES: Graves v Barnes, 378 F. Supp. 640, 650-652 (W. D. Tex. 1974) (three judge court), vacated, 422 U.S. 935 (1975), remand, 408 F. Supp. 1050 (1976) (three judge court) (constitutional challenge to Texas legislative districts): Calderon v McGee, 584 F.2d 66 (1978), vacated in part, 589 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1979) (constitutional challenge to at large scheme in Waco ISD)
GINGLES FACTORS
COMPACTNESS:
* "Black population is concentrated in the small sector
11
east of the river ... [and] immediately west of the river.... The most central areas of the city contain the only substantial concentrations of Mexican-American population." Graves, 378 F.
Supp. at 650
SENATE FACTORS
HISTORY OF DISCRIMINATION:
* blatant and pervasive discrimination Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 650-1
* elimination of ward system immediately after Black candidate almost won "to alleviate the threat of a Black council member" Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 651
* discrimination has caused overwhelming apathy and despair among minority voters Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 652
* "the lack of equal access by Blacks and Mexican-Americans to the political processes leading to the election of school board trustees is an empirically obvious political reality." Calderon, 584 F.2d at 68
EXTENT MINORITIES ELECTED TO PUBLIC OFFICE:
* no Black elected to Texas legislature from McLennan County; two Blacks elected to City Council - one beholden to white voters; no successful Brown City Council candidates Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 651
GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSIVENESS TO NEEDS OF MINORITIES:
important to minority community Graves, 378 F. Supp. at 651 ES
MIDLAND COUNTY
CASE NAMES: LULAC v Midland ISD, 648 F. Supp. 596 (W.D.Tex. 1986), aff'd, 812 F.2d 1494, vacated, 829 F.2d 546 (5th Cir. 1987)
GINGLES FACTORS
COMPACTNESS
* Blacks and Hispanics live in the eastern and southeastern portions of the City of Midland LULAC, 812 F.2d at 1502
12
COHESIVENESS:
* Hispanics and Blacks in Midland form one cohesive group
LULAC, 812 F.2d at 1498, 1499-1502
WHITE BLOC VOTE
* white bloc can defeat minority vote LULAC, 812 F.2d at
1502
SENATE FACTORS
HISTORY OF DISCRIMINATION:
* long history of discrimination against Blacks and
Hispanics in Midland County LULAC, 812 F.2d at 1496, 1498
* at large, numbered place, majority vote system enhanced
discrimination against minorities LULAC, 812 F.2d at 1498
POLARIZATION:
* polarization exists LULAC, 812 F.2d at 1498
EFFECTS OF DISCRIMINATION (SOCIO-ECONOMIC STRATIFICATION)
* minorities lag behind anglos in education, median family income, poverty status, housing problems, employment LULAC, 812 F.2d at 1494
EXTENT MINORITIES ELECTED TO PUBLIC OFFICE
* only three minorities ever elected to Midland ISD Board LULAC, 812 F.2d at 1496
Respectfully submitted:
WILLIAM GARRETT
GARRETT, THOMPSON & CHANG
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
A Professional Partnership
8300 Douglas Suite 800
Dallas, Texas 75225
214-369-1952
ROLANDO L. RIOS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
201 N. St. Mary's Suite 521
San Antonio, Texas 78205
512-222-2478
13
SUSAN FINKELSTEIN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
TEXAS RURAL LEGAL AID, INC.
201 N. St. Mary's Suite 600
San Antonio, Texas 78205
512-222-2478
By ft ma
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Susan Finkelstein, do hereby certify that a true and
correct copy of Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice of Voting
Rights Cases has been mailed via certified mail with correct
postage to:
ATTORNEY REPRESENTING
Plaintiff - Intervenors
Edward B. Cloutman, III Jesse Oliver
MULLINAX, WELLS, BAAB & Joan Winn White
CLOUTMAN, P. C. Fred Tinsley
3301 Elm
Dallas, TX 75226-9222
214/939-9222 FAX: 214/939-9229
E. Brice Cunningham Jesse Oliver Attorney at Law Joan Winn White 777 S. R. L. Thornton Fwy, Suite 121 Fred Tinsley Dallas, TX 75203
214/428-3793
Julius Levonne Chambers Houston Lawyers Assn. Sherrilyn A. Ifill Francis Williams NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Rev. William Lawson Fund, Inc.
99 Hudson St., 16th floor
New York, NY 10013
212/219-1900
14
EA
| »
Gabrielle K. McDonald Houston Lawyers Assn. MATTHEWS & BRANSCOMB Francis Williams 301 Congress Ave., Suite 2050 Rev. William Lawson Austin, TX 78701 Texas Legislative 512/320-5055 Black Caucus
Defendants
Jim Mattox All Defendants Mary F. Keller
Renea Hicks
Javier Guajardo
Attorney General's Office
P. O. Box 12548
Austin, TX 78711
512/463-2085
Defendant - Intervenors
J. Eugene Clements Judge Sharolyn Wood E. O'Neill
of Harris County Evelyn V. Keys
PORTER & CLEMENTS
700 Louisiana, Suite 3500
Houston, TX 77002-2730
713/226-0600
Darrell Smith Judge Sharolyn Wood Attorney at Law of Harris County 10999 Interstate Highway 10,
Suite 905
San Antonio, TX 78230
512/641-9944
Michael J. Wood Judge Sharolyn Wood Attorney at Law
of Harris County 440 Louisiana, Suite 200
Houston, TX 77002
713/228-5105
Mark H. Dettman Midland County & County Attorney
District Judges P. 0. Box 2559
Midland, TX 79702
915/688-1084
Ken Oden
Travis County District Travis County Attorney Judges P. O. Box 1748
Austin, TX 78767
512/473-9415
15
pe |S
David R. Richards Travis County District Special Counsel Judges 600 W. 7th St.
Austin, TX 78701
Robert H. Mow, Jr. Judge Harold Entz HUGHES & LUCE of Dallas County 2800 Momentum Place
1717 Main St.
Dallas, TX 75201
214/939-5500
each at the correct address on this 5th day of September, 1989.
eset Tm
//ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
16