Jones v. City of Lubbock Memorandum Opinion

    , IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

I FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TE)GS
LUBBOCK DIVISION

)- x
1..

.]AIi

t '.\

' .-ri'

I

I

J

:: .- -
;:. i: '.t

r.z,^I

, ;31
REV. ROY JONES, et a1.,

JAnZ $ ffilai.ntiffs,
JoSEpt.t i.iciLR3y, JR., Cl. ERI(8Y"""""'-"' 

L)-...,, i
clvrl, ACTIoN NO. CA-5-76-34

RECETVED

v.

CITY Of LUBBOCK, TH(AS, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDT'M OPINION

This case came on for trlal before the court on the 10th day of

January, 1983, wlth all parties and attorneys present. The court has

heard and cousidered the evidence offered, the pLeadings, and the briefs

aud'argument,s of the attorneys. The case ls pending before the court on

remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Flfth Circuit.

Jones v. Cltv of Lubbock, 640 F.zd 777 (5th Clr. 1981); Jones v. Clty of Lubbock,

682 E.zd 504 (5rtr Cir. 1982)

Subsequent to the courtrs orlginal judlnent in this case, on June 8,

Lg7g, the Supreme Court of the United States declded two cases, Cltv oi

Moblle v. Bolden, 445 U.S. 55 (1980), and Rogers v. Lodge, _ U.S. _r
102 S.Ct. 3272 (L982). The remand to thls courr was for rhe purpose of

reexaminlng the evidence and to glve appropriate consideration to the

teachlngs of these two Supreoe Court decislons which were decided after

the courtrs original judgnent in this case.

Ln additlon, the Congress of the Unlted States has amended the

Votlng Rights Act of L965, Pub. L. No. 97-205, 96 Stat. 131 (June 29,

1982) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. SS 1973 et sea.). This amendment.

to the Voting Rights Act of l-965 is alleged as an additonal ground for

reLief by the pLaintiffs in thelr first amended original couplalnt.

At the comDencement of the trlal on January 10, 1983, the court announced

that in reaching its final declsion, lt would consider not only the evidence



introduced at the current trlal, but t,he court would consider as part of

the evldence ln thls case all the testlmony and exhlbits which had been

lnrroduced ac.the first trLal ln 1978. It w6u1d be in light of all of

said evldence that the court would render lts decislon.

The court has prevlously ftled a Eemoranduo opinlon- to support lts

1979 judgrnent, and the findings and conclusions ln that memorandum

opinion are incorporated hereln, except, that, lf there is a confllct ''

between the 1979 memorandum and this memorandum, the findings of fact

and concluslons of law ln thls opinion w111 prevall. Further, the court

adopts all of the stlpulations of the parties as part of lts flndlngs of

Al-though the oemorandum opinion of June 8, 1979 sets forth the

controversy involved and the posltlons of the respectlve parties, the

court sunmarlzes the nature of the controversy as follows:

The named plalntiffs, representing two se-parate ninorlty groups,
Lt

Blacks and Mexican-Americans residing in the Clty of Lubbock, contend

that the at-Iarge system of elect,ion of the four members of the CLty

Councll of the Clty of Lubbock constltutes aD abridgeraent and dllutlon

of thelr vote in such races. lhqy polnt out that the at-Iarge systen

does not have any residency requireuent, that the candidates are reguired

to recelve a majority of the vote before belng elected, that the candidates

run by a numbered place, which constltutes an anti-single shot votLng

practice, and that these requlrements deny thelr coDstituLional rights

under the Flfteenth Amenduent and the Votlng Rights Act of 1965 as

amended. Ttre plalntiffs have also pled a Fourteenth Anendnent vlolation,

LI
For the purposes of thls opinion, the term "Mexican-Americans" will

be considered to include "Hispanicsr" "Spanish surnamed" and those of
"Spanlsh-origin. " Although the court recognizes that distlnctions ruay
be drawn between the varlous terms, the court belleves that such distinctions
do not affect the findings in this case, and all such groups are considered as
comprising one minorlty class known as "Mexlcan-Arnericans."

-2-



but this contention r.,ras neither argued nor presented to the court at

thls second trlal, and the determlnatlon of any such Fourteenth Amendment

violatlon ls not necessary. The defendant clty and city officials

counter with the positlon that there is no dllution or denlal of these

rnlnorltLes to fu1ly particlpate in the election process in Lubbock,

Texas because Lubbock per:nlts one to announce and run for places on the

Clty Councll without paynent of a fillng fee, the necesslty o! a petltlon,

or any other restriction; and that, aII parties, including minorltl.es,

can vote without the payment of any polI tax and without any hindrance

whatsoever from the clty or any of its officlals.

In entering its initlal judgment, this court at.teEpted to fol1ow

the standards and crlterla as requlred by the Unlted States Court, of

Appeals for the Flfth CLrcult in Zinmer v. McKeithen, 485 F.zd L297 (5tfr

Clr. L973) (en banc), affrd'on other grounds sub nom. East Carroll Parish

School Bd. v. Marsha11, 424U.5.636 (1976), and Nevett v. Sides, 57LF.2d

2Og (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied 445 U.S. 951 (1980), as well as the

united States ,"r';.;.fu, 412 u.s. 7s5 (1e73).

The decisions in Mobl.Le and Rogers, citlng Washlngtou v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229

(L976), and other Suprepe Court declslons, required a discrixuinatory

iDtent before rellef couLd be given for an alleged Fifteenth Amendment

vlolation.

The Congress of the Unlted States, in auending Sectioa 2 of the Voting

Rights Act of 1965 on June 29, L982, added language which has been referred

to as a "results" test as dlstinguished from the intent apparently requlred

by Moblle and Rogers. The Congressional Record of the Cotmittee Report,

of the Unlted States Senate otr this votlng rights amendment, Senate Rep. No.

97-4L7, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., reprlnted in July 1982 U. S. Code Cong. &

Ad. News 177, indicates that it was the intent of Congress to reestabllsh

the standards and criteria of the various clrcuit courts and United States

Supreoe Court as the law exlsted in this area prior to Mobile and Roger,s.

The Congress failed to require a dlscrlninat.ory intent in either the

-3-



the establlshment or maintenance of an electlon practice or procedure

and, in addltion, set forth certaLn standards that lt felt should gulde

the courts ln determining whether there L,as a vlolation of the Fifteenth

Amendnent and a violatlon of the Votlng Rights Act of 1965 as amended.

These changes, as enacted by the Congress of the Unlted States, requlre

a dlfferent approach to the problem of at-large elections than chat' ..

required prior to such auendment or even Ehat that was required by

Zimner and Nevett v. Sides

Therefore, this court will analyze the evidence at both the first

and second trials and apply such evldence to the standards as indicated

in.the Conmlttee Report of the Untted States Senate. These standards

are very similar to those set forth ln Zlnmer, but if there hras any

doubt prior to the amendment of the Voting Rlghts Act as to whether

or not discrininatory intentlon was required, that doubt has now been

finally removed. The reroovaL of any requi:enent of discrlmlnatory

intent as an element of recovery for violatlons of the Fifteenth Anendment

or the Votlng Rights Act as anended requires a reevaluatlon of the

evidence.

This court w111 not again tecite the general facts but these are

completely found as findlngs of fact in the courtts original opinion

on pages two through five, incluslve. However, there has been some

updatlng of these facts and the evldence now shows the population in

1980 iu the City of Lubbock is 173,979, of whlch 125,039 or 71.87" are

white, 14,204 or 8.27 are Black, 31,085 or 17.92 ate Mexlcan-Anerican,

and the remalniag 3,651 or 2.LZ are classlfied as "others." (Supp.Stip.Ex."SS-127).

In analyzing the typica]. factors. suggested by the Senate Cor"mlttee's'

Report, the court finds and concludes as follows:

-4-



A.

THE EXTENT OF ANY HISTORY

OF OFFICIAL DISCRIMINATION

This factor was discussed as a primary factor l-n the June 8, LgTg

memorandutr oplnion on page 32 under 'rEffects of Past Discrimination.rl

As orlglnally found, and the court again flnds, there has been a history

in Lubbock, Texas of officlal discriminatlon and it has been extensive'.

Att,ached as Appendix A to the courtrs origlnal opinion are Texas Constltutional

provisions and Texas statutory law, which also applied to Lubbock. It

appears that racial- dlscrluinatLon was at one tine the offlclal pollcy

of thls stat,e, lncluding denlal of mlnorltles of their rlght to vote.

Although the court does not find that such official discrlmlnation exists

in Texas or ln Lubbock today, lt Ls almost uncontradicted that such

offlcial discrimination dld exLst to a wide extent at the turn of the

century and for many, Eany years thereafa:t. _ In view of the courtts

finding in lts origlnal opinion that there-L7as a history of official

discrimination ln the State of Texas and that these discrlminatory

praetices and procedures were in existence in the City of Lubbock ln

the earlier years in the century, such factor points to the concluslon

that the present electlon procedures in Lubbock resul-t from past

dlscrinination.

B.

THE EXTENT TO IIHICH VOTING IN

THE ELECTIONS OF LUBBOCK IS MCIALLY POLARIZED

The originaL opLnion, page 9, found evidence of raclaIIy polarized

voting Ln Lubbock. The hearing held Ln January of 1983 further establishes

thls fact. Although the facts used and considered by platntiffst expert

witness may have onitted other contrLbuting factors, he did use the evidence

-5-



in the record of this case in reaching a deterurlnation that there \das

racial polarlzatlon ln the voting patterns of tubbock. Hls concluslons,

based on a correlation nethod to ureasrife polari.zation ln voting, found

a very hlgh correlatl.on, .90 or more' ln analyzing ftfteen races where

Mexican-Anericans ran and seven where Blacks were candidates. . He

testlfied that a .5 finding would be a high correlatlon of the measure.'

of polarization in votlng but .9 as he found in most of the races anal-yzed

\ras very high, 1n fact two-thlrds of then were above .9 and all above

.5.

The evidence points to the lnescapable concluslon that there is a

high degree of polarized voting ln Lubbock. The defendanEs have correetly

polnted out that ln reaching thLs correlation factor, the plalntiffst

expert wltness, DE. Robert R. Brlschetto, used census data rather than

actual voters for one of the two measures in his study. Nevertheless'

the court believes that the results he atiainld are so strong that,, eveu

had precise votlng statlstics been available, polarlzed votiug would

have been shown. Although lt ls not the defendantsr burden to furnish

controverting figures, defendantst own exPert witness, Dr. Delbert A'

Taebel, after descrlbing ecologlcal fallacy and the effect factors other

than ethnicity night have on voting behavior, admltted that with correlations

as high as those found by Dr. Brlschetto, there is polarized voting ln

Lubbock, but Dr. Taebel quallfied thl-s sdatement by saying he belleved

that ethnicity rras not necessarLly an "overridlngrr factor.

The exlstence of such a hlgh degree of Polarlzed voting' on the

part of all races in Lubbock, ls a factor strongly lndicating that the

rJ.ghts of minorlties have been abrldged or diluted because of thelr race

or color in the use of an at-Iarge systen'

-5-



C.

THE EXTENT TO WHICH LUBBOCK }IAS USED -

I'NUSUALLY LARGE ELECTION DISTRICTS. ETC.

The evidence establlshes the following:

1. That Lubbock, ln using the at-Iarge system of electlon, constitutes

a dlstrlct of 91.5 square mll-es. 
..

2. That Lubbock requires a uajorlty vote, or a runoff, before any

person can be elected as a member of the Clty Council-

. 3. Although there ls no ordlnance prohibitlng anti-single shot

votlng, the reguiremeut that the candidates for the Clty Council in

Lubbock, Texas anndunce for and run for a numbered place is tantamount

to an antl-single shot provislon

4. Ihere ls no regulreuent that a candidate reside in a partlcular

section or area, which has resulted in the election of Anglo candidates

to the Clty Councll from the west and southwest or predominantly Anglo

portions of the clty.

Itris factor weighs heavily ln favor of a finding of dilution or

abrldgement of the rlghts of minorltles t,o vote In Lubbockts at-1arge

elections

D.

IS THERE A CANDIDATP SLATING PROCESS A}ID

ARE UINORITIES DENIED ACCESS TO THAT PROCESS

The court has not been convinced by the testimony aE elther trlal

that there presetrtly exlsts any candidate slating process in Lubbock.

At one time, twenEy-five or tnore years Past, there was a grouP, made up

of Anglos, known as the "Emplre Builders." Thls was not a highly structured

group but consisted mainly of white business and professionaL men who

would ueet and urge certain citizens of Lubbock to run for clty offlces

-7-



and in turn give then their full support. No rninority group member ls

known to have been invited or to have attended any of their meeti.ngs.

Apparently this organizatLon has not existed for ,"o, ,.rrs and there is

no evldence bf any.other slatlng group in Lubbock.

Plalntlffs would urge that prlor to the 1982 elections, a for:ner

Eayor, Dr. Granberry, was the host for a luncheon at the Universlty City

Club at which flfty to sixty whlte business and professlonal men were.in

attendance for the purpose of agreeing on candldates for city offices.

However, the evldence also shows that at least one prominent member of

the Black comunity was Lnvited to the meeting and there t as no discussion

or consideration given to whether or not minorlties could attend or

worild be lnvited to attend. One witness testlfied that he had on aE

least two occasions urged members of the minority couurunity to run for

city offlce but had not been successful except ln the case of a school

board oember.

The court flnds that there is no sfatfng process ln Lubbock and

therefore thls factor does not weigh ln plalntlffst favor.

E.

TEE EXTENT TO IIHICH MINORITIES IN LUBBOCK

BEAR THE EFFECTS OF DISCRI},TINATION IN AREAS

oF EDUCATION, EMPLOYTEM. A]ID HEALTH

The evidence indlcates that mlnorities, ln the past, were dlscriuinated

agalnst la the areas of education, euplo)ment, and health which, under

an at-Iarge system, results ln a dllution or abridgeoent of minoritlesr

right to vote. I{trile 74.82 of the Anglos are high school graduates, only

30.37. of the Mexican-Americans ana 40.L7" of the Blacks have high school

degrees (Ex.P-7A). The unemplolment rate as of JuIy 1982 for Lubbock

SMSA is 57 for Anglos, 8.62 for Blacks, and 9.32 f.ot Mexican-Americans

(S,rpp.Stip.198). According to the 1980 census a totaL of 28,82J- persons

-8-



in Lubbock County llve beloh, poverty level, of which L5,399 or 53.4

percent are elther Mexlcan-American or 81ack.(Supp'.Stlp.188). At the

time that thls court wrote its original oplnion in June of L97g, the

lnfant rnortallty rate ln the Clty of Lubbock was seventh highest ln Ehe

nation for cltles of lts slze, the maJorlty of these deaths being among

minorities. Thls factor has largely been remedied at this date as ..

indlcated by the stipulatlon as to the testinony of R. D. Goodman (Ex.D-7A).

The health department budget hae Lncreased frorn $787,684 in L977-78 to

$1,739,673 Ln 1982-83, an increase of over LZOZ over thls period of tine

(Ex.D-5A). In addltloo, the lnfant mortallty rate ln Lubbock has now

dropped below the state or national averages (Ex.D-7A).

Mr. Charlie Guy, a respected forner editor of the local paper,

testified that when he first went on the schooL board in the 1930rs he

was appalled by the condltion of the schools where the minoritLes were

the predornlnant race. He states that he lr'-ediat.eLy urged the schooL

board to rectlfy these condltions, and that. a program rras cormenced to

do so. Although Lubbockts schools are now largely desegregated, it did

take a lawsuit to effect such desegregatlon.

The evldence further establishes that the income of minorities ls

uuch less than that of whltes and in city emplo)ment this is also true

(Supp.Srip.170 & Supp.Stlp.Ex."SS-24") .

The court concludes that the extent of past discrlmination in such

areas as educatlon, employment,, and health has, according to the wit,nesses

on this subJect, hl.ndered their ability to participate effectively in the

poL1tical process. The extent of such discriuination has greatly narrowed

in recent years, but the effects on effective participation in the political

process by minorities sti1l exlst. This is expressed ln several ways,

-9-



one of which is that minoritles do not vote because of their be1lef that

their vote "will not mean anything" and a general apathet,lc attitude

exists on the part of the minorities because.of srich past discrimination.

However, lt is noted that ln recent years, Black and Mexican-American

registration has lncreased on a percentage basls Eo the degree lt approxlnately

equals that of Anglos. Thls is attrlbuted malnly, lf not soIeIy, to

voter registration drlves in the minority preclncts ln Lubbock. e.

F.

HAVE POLITICAL CAI.{PAIGNS IN LUBBOCK

BEHII CHAMCTERIZED BY OVERT OR SUBTLE RACIAL APPEALS

There is no evldence in this record iirdicating that any racial

appeal-s have been made to the voters in polltical campaigns, and this

factor does not welgh in favor of the plaintiffs.

G.

utb nxtrur ro mrtcu urNoRrry cRoups

HAVE BEEN ELECTED TO PUBLIC OFFIdE IN LTIBBOCK

The auenduent to the Voting Rights Act of L965 states that one

factor the court may consider in deternining whether plaintlffs are

entitled to reli.ef is whether or not members of a protected class have

been eLected to offLce in Lubbock. There have been no Blacks or Mexican-

Americans elected to the City Council of Lubbock or to the office of

Mayor of Lubbock although nany have announced thelr candidacy for such

offices and appeared on the baIIot. Statistics ln this case indicate

that some uinorlty candldates rnight have been elected had a single-nember

systen of electiou Eo these offices been in effect (Ex.P-8A).

Of course, Lt is axiomatic that Einorities do not, under the Constl-

tution or the Voting Rlghts Act, have a right to be elected, Clty of Mob11e v.

Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980); Voting Rights Act, S 2(b) (June 29, 1982),

42 U.S.C. S 1973(-b)-, nor ls there any right of minorlties to have

-10-



an election distrlct so framed as to guarantee or lnsure election of a

v. chavis, 403-u.s. lza (1971).urinorlty candidate. I{hltconb

But,, under the totalLty of clrcumstances, the court finds that the

fact that there have been no mlnorlty members elected does mltigate ln

favor of the plainti.ffs.

Defendants polnt out that a Mexlcan-Anerlcan has been elected Eo ''

the school board ln Lubbock which has boundary lines almost coinciding

wlth the boundary lines of the City of Lubbock; however, this member of

thl school board was el-ected under a plurallty-vote system. DefendanEs

also rely on the fact that there is a Mexican-Anerlcan rePresenting the

Lub|ock area ln the Leglslature in the State of Texas, but he was elected

after the enactment of a law which created a slngle-oember distrlct.

Prlor to that, the at-large election for the Legislature was in effect

and minorities Lrere not elected during that period. Llkewlse, a Black

was elected as a Justice of the Peace ln the November 1982 electlons as

a candldate of the Republ-ican Party. Ilis Democratlc oPPonent Iras a

Mexlcaa-Amerlcan, and this race is inapposite to thls situation, because,

again, the Justice of the Peace.race occurred ln a single-member district

and one minority ran against another minorlty.

E.

HAS THERE BEEN RESPONSIVENESS ON THE PART

OF ELECTED CITIZENS TO THE PARTICTII,ARIZED NEEDS

OF }TINORITIES IN LUBBOCK

Again, the court would refer to lts memorandun oplnion of June 8,

L979. Io that opinion the court detalled the evidence which proved and

established, without doubt, that the Clty of Lubbock has, and for many

years past, responded to these particularized needs. Thls factor

ls not deened to be one of the more inportant ones by the Senate

-11-



Conmittee, but was emphasLzed ln Zimmer and other cases. If responsiveness

were the only factor to be consldered by thls couri, judgment would be

entered for the defendants, because the overwhelming evldence establishes

a real responsiveness by the Clty of Lubbock, lncludlng 1ts elected offlcials,

toward the partlcularlzed needs of the cltyrs minorlty resldents.

I.

I^IAS THERE DISCRIMINATORY INTENT PRESENT IN

ESTABLISHING LUBBOCK'S AT.LARGE SYSTW

0riglnal1y, the court, either expressly or inplledly, found that

there qras no intent to dlscrlmi.nate agalnst mlnorities when the at-large

system was established in Lubbock or ln the.malntenance of that system

today. Ihe courE is st111 of the flra oplnlon that there ls no discrimina-

tory intent by the Clty of Lubbock or any of its officlals ln maintaLning

the at-1arge system. The policy is neutral on its face, and those of

the present officials of the Clty of Lubbock iho testlfied are of the

oplnion that it,s ualntenance is in the best lnterests of clvlc Eanagenent

and the most effectlve way to have its elected officlals reply and be

responsive to all of its citlzens.

However, thls does not tnean that discriminatory intent was not

present when the decislon to eruploy the at-1arge system for election of

councj.l members ln Lubbock was made in 1917. At the second trial,

evidence was introduced in the forn of editorlals from the old Lubbock

Avalanche newspaper in the perlod fron 1909 to L924 when a Mr. James L.

Dow was the editor, publlsher and owner of this paper. These editorials

are shown in Plaintiffst Ex.I-A. It is not known whether or not these

editorials represented the general views of the citizens of Lubbock, but

suffice lt to say that Mr. Dowrs editorials were unhesitant in expressing

derogatory and vile remarks toward Blacks and show a bias and bitterness

-L2-



on hls part toward the Black race. The evldence also shows that Ur.

Janes L. Dow was a member of the City Charter Cornriisslon that prepared

and submltted to the voters a charter to govern the City of Lubbock and

provldi.ng for an at-large systern for electing lts council membera.

In vlew of this additlonal evldence and ln llght of the past history

of discrimination, lncluding discrlminatory enactment,s by the State ..

Legislature, the court now concludes that the establl-shment of the at-

large systen for the electlon of Clty Councll members in the City of

Lubbock was done with a discrininatory lntent.

CONCLUSION

. The above findlngs support a concluslon that the at-large electioo

system ln Lubbock results in an abrldgenent or denlal of the rlght of

ni-norlties to vote. Adnittedly, all these factors do not point to such

results, but under the totality of the circumstances such results are

found to exist 1n Lubbock and constltute a denial of the rights guaranteed

by the Flfteenth Amendment and the Votlng Rights Act of L955 as,-ended.

These flndings indicat,e that the plaintiffs are entltled to rellef.

As aoended, Sectlon 2(a) and (b) of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.

$ 1973, provides as follows:

"Sec. 2. (a) No votlng qualificatlon or prerequisite
to votLng or standard, practice, or procedure sha11 be
imposed or applied by any State or polltlcal subdlvislon
in a manner whlch results in a denial or abridgement of
the rlght of any citizen of the United States to vote
on account of race or color, or Ln contraventlon of the
guarantees set forth in section 4(f) (2), as provided in
subsection (b).

"(b) A viol-atlon of subsectlon (a) is established Lf,
based on the totality of the circuastirices, it is shown
that the polltical processes leading to nomination or
election ln the State or political subdlvision are not
equally open to participation by meubers of a class of
citizens protected by subsection (a) in that its members
have l-ess opportunity than other members of the electorate

-13-



to partlcipate in the polltlcal process and to elect
representatlves of their cholce. The extent to whlch
members of a protected class have been dlected to office
ln the State or polltlcal subdivlsion is one circumstance
which nay be consldered:.Provlded, That nothing ln this
section establlshes a rlghE to have members of a protected
class elected ln numbers equal to thelr proportLon in the
population. "

The question to be deterulned by the court,, based on thede relevant

factors and under the totallty of the circumstances, is: Do the ,enbers

of the two cLasses of ruinorities ln this suit, Blacks and Mexican-Americans,

have- less opportunlty than the ot.her members of the electorate to

partlcipate in the election process and'to elect members of their choice?

If so, the practice or procedure of the at,-large system of the City of

Lubbock w111 be in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and reIlef

will be awarded. The answer to this question ls in the affirmative. Under

the findings of the court with respect to the factors which the Congress

deened to have been relevant to the determlnatlon of this question, and

under the totality of all of the circuxostatrces and evldence in this case, it

is inescapable that the at-large systen in Lubboek abridges and dilutes

minoritiesr opportunitles to elect meubers of theLr own choice and that their

opportunity is much less than that of the other members of the eLectorate.

In view of such concluslons and findings, the court further finds

that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as amended, SS 2(a) and 2(b), prohibit

the further use of the aE-Iarge system for the election of City Councll

members in the City of Lubbock, Texas.

Secondly, as the court has deterroined above that discritninatory

intent was lnvolved in the original establishment of the at-large systen

in Lubbock in the year 1917, that such at-Iarge system is a violation of

the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitutlon of the United States even

though discriminatory intent is not reguired by the Congress in the

-L4-



Votlng Rlghts Act, the flndlng of dlscrlmlnatory *a"rra ln thls case

fulfllle the iequlremeato of Moblle'and Rogers.

By order of eveo date herewlth, the court w111 subnlt lts proposed

plan for redlstrlctlng the clty.

The Clerk w111 furnlsh a copy hereof to each attorney.

ENTERED thie 20th day of January, 1983.

Northern Dletrlct of Texas

O. WOODI.TARD

Chlef Judge

-15-