Letter from Guinier to Chief Justice Elizabeth Bird and Associate Justice RE: Carrillo v. Whittier Union High School District

    May L4, 1984

Honorable Chief Justice
Rose Elizabeth Bird and
Associate Justices

California Supreme Court
4250 State Building
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California 91402

RC: Carrillo v. Whittier 2d Civ.
No. 67858

Ilonorable Chief Justice and Associate Justice:

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
r.=p".tfutly urg6s that the Court grant the petition for hearing
filad by ueiicai American plaintiffs in this state constitutional
challenle to the at-large Llection scheme of the Whittier Union
High School District.

I'or many years, the Legal Defense Fund has brought lawsuits,
principally-in the federal courtsr oo behalf of black persons
tnrorrgirout the nation, challenging denial or dilution of their
votin! rights. 8.g., Citv of,Mobile v- Folden,.446 U'S' 55
(I98oi. in the 66Gse@lawsuits, the Fund has
often found that vigorous protection of the voting rights of
minority citizens -- a right Preservative of all other rights
has oftln been undermined by poorly articulated, confusing, or
unduly strict federal standards of proof -

This Court, unlike the federal courts, is charged with the
duty of enforcing the equal protection clause of the California
conititution, a guarantee whose force and vitality are indepen-
dent of the federal constitutional counterpart. The Court,
therefore, has an opportunity to assess the history of federal
voting rights enforlement, and learn from the experience of the
federil c5urts in applying such disparate constitutional
authority as the Bolden and Rogers v. Lodge U:S.
( I9 8 2 ) cises . rnEE becaffifJrre conf us ion and uncertainty
in the law occasioned by the onerous burden of proof standards of
Boldqn, Congress amended the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S. S L973,

Contributions are dedu,ctible lor U.S. income tar Wrposes

Ihe NAACp LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATTONAL FUNo is not part ot rhe National Association tor the Advancement ot colore_d People although il

"iiio,inoeo 
ui itino strares itJio.ritmCrt to equat righ6. LDF has had lor over 25 years a separate Board, program, staft, oflice and budget.



Honorable Chief Justice Rose Bird
and Associate Justices

May 14, 1984
Page 2

effectively restoring the status guo ante prior to Bolden. The
Iesson to be drawn i; that-EFc6Etffis-e wisely iiEJecting
the federal intentional discrimination standard in enforcing the
California Constitution's equal protection clause, ?.9.-, Serrano
v. Priest, CaI.3d (1971); Jackson v. Pasadena City
ffiooT5fstffi, 59 cal;F875 (196: ng
@of impact or effect to establish a pfima facie
case of discrimination a standard which can be clearly
articulated and applied.

W€, therefore, urge the Court to grant hearing in order to
declare that the same proof standards aPPIy to voting rights
cases as in other areas covered by the equal protection clause,
i.e., a clear articulation that a showing of adverse racial
fmpact alone raises an inference of discrimination in an at-Iarge
election case unless the government rebuts the prima facie case.
The court of appeals opinion erred in failing to apply this
standard, and requiring ptaintiffs to present additional
evidence, such as proof that Itlexican American candidates ran
serious campaigns, as part of their prima facie case, although
such evidence should be part of the government's burden.

Furthermore, the court of appeals erred in rejecting usual
and customary evidence of discrimination. For example, the court
of appeals rejected the use of statistical correlation coeffi-
cients to establish polarized voting by Anglo and llexican American
voters, ignored testimonial evidence of bloc voting by those with
experience in Whittier elections and wholly excluded studies of
polarized voting in the state and the nation, dlthough such evi-
dence is typically presented and accepted in federal voting
rights litigation. Maior v. Treen, 57 4 F. Supp. 325 (8.D. La.
1983) (three judge couitJ. 1T this decision is permitted to
stand, the California courts would be in the odd posture of
declining to rely on evidence of polarized voting, a critical
element in an at-large election caser oo which aII other courts,
federal or state, rely.

For the above
granted.

reasons, the petition for hearing should be

Resp

\/'')-----
.JA
LANI GUINIER

Attorneys for the NAACP
LegaI Defense and
Educational Fund, Inc.