Legal Research on Racial Discrimination and Voting

    *1-T L

Political access is not a vapid phrase confined within a rigidformula, but is freguently perpetuated by mores, folkways, indcustoms. In this area the Supreme Court has liberated us from
any dichotomy of de facto and de jure. rt is not necessary to

. establish that miiSrlffiotersTrfing legally disenfranltrised.
We are Permitted to explore the entire environment and to measureits political pollutants.

Graves v Barnes 378 F.Supp.
ffia3 ffiex. Lg74)'i.,-,
(per curium) (on remand) , vacated
ih licrht of reaoooritonneiffiE-.sl-9-T5,-fsffie7s).

A key issue in a voting dilution case is wnether the minority
group of which the plaintiff is a member is denj.ed equal
icceis to the varioils phases of the political process, including
nomination, campaigning, voter registration, and voting. If
lack of minority input into the electoral process can be demon-
strated then the plaintiff has gone far toward proving that the
at-Iarge electoral system has the effect of diluting minority
votes. A denial of equal access may take any of several forms,
ranging from such direct governmentalllz-sanctioned exclusions
as the poll tax or the white primary, to the existence of a
private slating organization that uses racist tactics and
does not seek minority votes (as in White v. Reqesterr guPra),
to less concrete but no less effective barrj-ers to participation
such as cultural and language differences between the majority
and minority, see White v. Regester, 4L2 U.S. at 768, 93 S.Ct-
at 2340, 37 L.EE2d-f325,-msproportion between the levels
of education, income, employment, and living conditions of the
majority and. minority. See Kirksey, 554 F.2d at L44 & 145-

Cross v Baxter 604 F.2d 875, 979-
EEo-Tcas-Ie7g'I

In essence, the crj-teria are directions that telI the the
tri-al court what type of circumstantial evidence can make
out a dilution'case. The court must address each subissue,
if relevant to the particular case at hand, and determine
whether the evidence under that criterion weighs in favor of
or against a finding of dilution. The court is next to view
the find.ings under the criteria as a whole, i.e., "in the
aggregater" Zimmer, 485 F.2d at 1305, giving due regard to the
signi-ficance and strength of the finding under each subissue,
to determine if the ultimate inference of dilution is permis-
sib1e, and, if sor whether the evidence preponderates in its
favor.

Nevett v Sides 571 F.2d 209,
7ffi.e5 IF6'L cert. denied /
446 u.s. esr (r9E-0I:-

What is being reviewed here is whether a certain election
procedure teids to dilute the ef€ectiveness or minoffiotes-
andEfical participation, the ease with which members of the
minority can vote is only one factor in solving that problem.

Pitts v Busbee 395 F.Supp.
ilE-'(ffi. 1e75t,
vac.'--ed and remanded 536 P.2dm--*lmffi.w



we have recognized that past policies.of racial discrimination
may have present impact upon Lhe participatiol of the minority
in the political process. The meie removal of past official
discimination d,oes not render the present effect's of that
discrimination irrelevant in deterinining whether an electoral
scheme dilutes the votes of the minority'

cross v Baxter 604 F.2d 875, '/Eil[cas-ffiI
+

The use of an at-large system of voting, not in itself unfair
to any individual voter, when imposed on a communi.ty with a
history and legacy of discrimination against an identifiable
group may operate to d.eny that group an opportunity for effective
participation in the electoral system.

Kendrick v
ffisl

Walder 527 F.2d 44, 49

There can be no question but that the racism of the past.hl= 19d
to the present ricial polarization in voting' And-certe*nIy the
indignities thrust upoi't blacks in the past are stil1 well within +
their minds when they cast their ballols or consider the pursuit
of political office.

Clark v lrlarengo Cou4tY 469 F.
ffiF: : :56';-1fig Ts. o. ata. Lel e)

It is not enough that the less subtle means of diminishing
black participation have been removed. As we admonished in
Unj-ted States v. Texas u4qcation Agency, 532 F.2d 380 (5tfr
@acat er qrounds sub nom.
austin lndep
U.S. 990, 97 S.Ct. 5L7, 50 L.Ed.2d 503 (L977), discriminatory
official action is often clandestine and po1it,ic.

Bolden v City of Mobile, AIa.
57L F.2d 238, 244, 245 (CA5 1978),

rev'd and remanded 446 U.S. 55,6ffi.efzaffi5'Eol .

c,r^h ^*J -D



History and powerlessness create apathlz and unresponsive
representatives: unresponsiveness breeds more apathy, apathy
moie powerlessness and unresponsiveness. Not only those who
do nol learn from history, but also those who are trapped by
history, are condemned to repeat it.

Graves v Barnes 378 F.SuPP.
640;647 (w. D. rex. Le1 4) (per
curium) (on remand), vacated
in Iiqht of reannortiffienE
Tzzffifisffiz (Lezs)

. ttre issr:e krere of cpurse is not wtrettrer Rapides Parish discrjrnirnted
against blacks in the past, but rather whether arry debilitat'lng effects of
iat aiscrimination =tiff persist. . In prexrious cases srrch debilitating
effects hanre usr"nlly been lficr^rn by a relatively klq, d.iscrepanqg between

the size of ttre blacl< Snpulation and tLre nunber of registered black rrcters

Bradas v Rapides Parish Police Ju:ry
56a-L.za
rehf a en banc denied 510 F.2d
r4-ffi(8751 .

Tlris Cor:rb. has repeatedly held that the ocistence of past racial discrjmi-
nation is relevarrt to a decision whetlrer at-larrge electoral districts
r:nconstitutionally dj-lute the rrcting strength of blacks. . The key
question, Lrcrvever, is wtrether "ttre existence of past racial discrimination
in general pr=cludes tlre effecthie participaLlon lof blacks] in the
election systen" today. Zinner 485 F.2d at 1305.

i,rcill v @dsen Cor:nt1z Conmj-ssionE-r-zamZBredffi
13f

-::Tr -:.- :;=i:r',:-t -'

. , 
...;. , *,;a .

*; -r,--. : ;'-l;3:.|,{S

once plaintiffs have demonstrated a history of pervasive
dj-scrimlnation and a present disproportion in voting regis-
tration and erection of minority representatives, they [ave
carried their burden of proving that the past discrimination
has present effects. seet e.g.t Hendrix v. Joseph 559 F.2dat L270; Kirkggy, 551 I.2d at L44 & -rZ6; araffi-il Bapids-Eparish eoIGIr[w, 508 F.2d 1ro9 , Ltt2 (c[ilI975)ffiffir,
ffi The defendants must then come rorriffiir,
rebutting evidence proving that current d.isproportions are not
an effect of the past.

Cross v Baxter 604 F.2d 875,
88r-882 (cA5 1979)

+

:ly?

Cp,.rh rtrx^!- -+



Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that there are present
effects of past discrimination, but if "sweeping and pervasive,'
past discrimination in minority voting registration and electionof representatives are proved, then the burden shifts to the
defendant to prove that the past discrimination no longer has aneffect on the present

Mclntosh County,Dffioffi:E NAACP v Cit,y of
753, 759 (sth Cir. L9791 /

Although Plaintiffs need not establish by d.i.rect proof a causalrelationship between the effects of past discrimination and thedenj.ar of access_to poritical partj.cipation, Kirksey v. Boardgf qupervisors , ss4 F.2d I39, 145 (5th cir. ) ffitc) , cerr.
9eniedt -- U.S. --t 98 S.Ct. 512, 54 L.Ed.2d 454 (Lg77i ,E"district court must make a specific finding to that effect.
The court failed to do so in this case.

rn summation, the plaintiffs established a long-existenthistory of sweeping and pervasive denial of aci"ss to thedemocratic political pro-ess and of official urrr.iporrsive-ness to the needs of blacks. The trial court mistlkenlyplaced lpon plaintiffs the burcen of coming forward, with evi-dence that the long-existent and recent hiitory was stirl cur-rgn! hi.story at the time of trial. rt erroneously placed, onplaintiffs the.obllgation of proving a causal retationshipbetween educational and economic deiiciencies and the denialof access to political life.

Kirksey v Board of Superiors
ot Hj-nds County, Miss. 554 F.2d

banc) r --
cert. denied 434 U.S. 96a A977)

The residual effects
offici-aI imoediments

of
to

past discrimination may linger long afterthe electoral Drocess have been ,"ri"".J.

@-v Citv of Abilene,No. cA-I-80-m1B
(N. D. Tex. Oct . 22 , Lgg2\



Voting along racial lines allows those eLected to
interests rvithout fear of nolitical consecruences,
bloc voting the rninority candidates would not lose
soIely because of their race.

Lodcre 73Rocrers v

-

ignore black
and without
elections

L.Ed.2d 1019 (1982)

Polarized or bloc voting, although in itself constitutionally
unobjectionable, allows representatives to ignore minorityinterests without fear of reprisal at the potts.

Nevett v gldes 571 F.2d 209,
ZE-iEas f57e-), cerr. denied
446 u.s. 9sr (leETr

Evidence of racial polarj.zation in voting has been held to be
i pr"r.quisite to a voting dj.lution challenge. se9 NeYett,
571 F.2d ar 223 c n.15, citing united Jewish 9rg?ni3?tion.v..
carev, 430 u.a: ila, r6e n.24; 51 L'Ed'2d
ffir4;- l1,g77l . If race plays no part in voters' choices,
there is no injury to blacics ls a group caused by the use of
multi-member districts -

Cross v Baxter 604 F.2d 875, '/
EEo-(cesffii-

where the voters vote overwhelmingly a1on9 racial lines'
where " 

*":"iily of the registered voters are white and where

all of the officials are eiected at-Iarge, no black candidate
is fifefy to ""ni",r" 

i majority in either the first or the
second. pii*i.f. And frerel the primary is the election.

Wallace v House 515 F'2d 519,
fffis 13'Evacated 425 u's' "u
s47, iB-1.ea. ja feTftq'z6) .

-.The effect of an at-Iarge election system in combination with
the minority status of blacks and the social pattern of racially
polarized voting is a dilution of black voting strength. +

Hendrix v McKinney 450 F.Supp.
ffie (M.D.AIr1e78)

As the Court found before, voting in tvlontgomery County follows
racial lines. This fact undoubtedly discourages black candidates
because they face the certain prospect of defeat.

Hendrix v McKj.nney 460 F.Supp.
ffi2 (M.D.AIE 1e78) Or*rrun.!

-)



If racially polarized voting did not exist, white candidates
could not expect to retain or achieve office so1ely because
they were white. Their black constituents would constitute
merely another minority group that might become an element
necesiary to the formalion of a majority coalition. Under
these co;ditions, white officeholders would ignore black
needs at their peril.

Additionally, in the absence of polarized voting, black candi-
dates could not be denied office because they were black, and
a case of unconstitutional diultion could not be made.

Nevett v Sides 571 F.2d 209,
ffirce5 TFBT, cert. denied
446 rr.s. 9sI (1980).

The existence of such a high degree
factor strongly indicating that the
abridged or diluted because of their
at-large svstem.

of polarized voting . is ariqhts of minorities have been
race or color in the use of an

,fones v City of Lubbock, No.
CA - 5 - 76 34, slirr op. at
5 (N.D.Tex. Jan. 20, 1983)

Y



rn a county in-which the per capita income of whites greatryexceeds that of blacks, the geographicar size of the d,istrictmust be considered as an enhancement of dilution, -;a least onthe question of access.

Clark v Marenqo Countv
ZU-e- F.suppTTf5oTJ-a
(s.o.A1a. L9791

David v Garrison 553 F.2d g23,gTFTcasff

when it comes to the constituionality of_the at-large system,however, the size of the eredtor"t"-i""ra seem-t"-[E important.The number of people involved-must logicarly be considered.For a voter to know rhe candidai;;,-f;; the 
""rraiJ"t"" to gerthe attention of the votei, the commitment of time, moneyr andother resources to an elecii"" pi"""=""*rr"t vary wid,ely withthe size of the electorate.

*

Any considerati-on of access to the election process mustnecessarily concern itself with the size of trre electorate.The time, money, and number of persons needed for a cam-paign in a small electorate, and the ability or irre voters toknow the various candidates with a minimum of effort, d,iffersso much from districts of 1"rgg popuration and .*i"rra"a geo-graphical area that cases aeciaea und.er one set of circuristancesmay be questionable gui-des to decisions under the other. rn asma1I electorate, the plaintiffs must show facts that over-come what would seem to be apparent--that candidates with onlymodest support could wage an- effective campaign in which themerits of their candid.a-y could be amply expoled to the voters.
David v Garrison 553 F.2d 923.

L/929 (cA5 L977)

Although the size does have implicationsr €.9., the expense
involved in campaigning increases with the- sEe of the con-
stituency as does the need for resort to forms of mass commu-
nication to reach voters; and the potential for dilution appears
to increase as the size of the constituency increases, plaintiffs
should have the opportunity to show that they have suffered
a disadvantage even though the size of the electorate is sma11.

Kendrick v
@-T97sl

Walder 527 F.2d 44, 50

Y

ii<!L



r;,t4:.i'+ffi.-lE!I _'J}:1,4

As if the majority vote requirement were not enough of an
impediment to black candidates, Louisiana law poses another
severe obstacle to all minority voting interests, racial and
otherwise, in the form of the "anti-single shot" or "fuII
s1ate" requirement. La.Rev.Stat. S 18:351. This provision
forces a voter in an at-Iarge election to vote for as many
candidates as there are places to be filledr oll pain of having
his balbt invalidated as to aII of the at-Iarge positions for
that pirticular office. Where a minority interest grouP does
not boast a full slate of candidates, the anti-single shot Iaw
requires supporters of the minority grouP to cast ballots for
at least some of the group's opponents, thereby rendering
the minority's task that much more difficult.

Wallace v House 515 F.2d 6!9,
6re5 IEE vacate4 '425 U. S.
947, 48 L.Ed.2d 191 (1976).

The "anti-single shot" t317 provides that if two or more

equal in numbe::s to the nurnber of of f ices at stake, or his
ba1lot wi1l be invalidated '^rith resnect to all of those of f ices '
. . . The effect of this is that black voters are unable to
run a s-i-ng}e candidate and urge that black voters onlv Vote for
that candidate' wallace v House 377 F'sunn ' -Lg2,

rTf8--O-i. D . ffi97 4), modif ied
515 E.2d 619 (5th eirffi vacated
i25 I].S.947 ,4e L.F:d.2ri 191 (l-975) .

The state legislative races in particular are marked by a

requirement ifrat candidates from a multi-member district run
for a specific "place" on the balIot. Since t,here is no
matchin-g provisi|n that these places correspond to particular
sectionl of the district in which the candidate must reside,
the rule serves no function but to reduce the election to a

series of head-to-head contest with a consequent emphasis on
the racial element where it aPpears'

Graves v Barnes 378 F.SuPP.
@l (w5'.rex. 1974) (per
curium) (on remand), vacated
in licht of reaoPortffi
42?. u.s. 53s@2 ,reTs) 

-

"-i-.ll*-:=. .--:-=;--!r- .5-3irlam
'I



when bloc voting has been demonstrated, a showing und,er zimmerthat the governing body is unresponsive to minority needffistrongly corroborative of an intentional exploitation of theelectoraters bias. The likelihood of intenlj.onal exploitationis "enhanced" by the existence of systemic d,evices such as amajority vote reguirement, an anti-single shot provision, andthe rack of a requirement that fies.n,tr*rirres reiid,e in sub-districts . frPESrr, YtttZs

Nevett v Sides 571 F.zd 209, ./
F-rce5 fq7il, cert. denied.
445 u.s. es1 [1eETJ:

The court concluded, as a matter of law, that the size of the county
tends to impair the access of blacks to the political Process.

The majority vote requirement,.
of the minority" and thue "denY

Rogers'v Lodge 73 L.Ed.2d 1019,
t024 (1982).

was found "to submerge the will
the minority's access to the system."

Rogers v Lodge 73 L.Eo.2d 1019,
L024 (r982).

*

The court also found the requirement that candidates run for specific
seats . enhances respondentts lack of access because it prevents
a cohesive poitical group from concentrating on a single candidate.

Roqers v Lodse 73 L.Ed.2d 1019,
4 +
L024 (1982).

,l;r
ir

This device [t.he majority vote requirement] has been severely +
criticized as tending to submerge a political or racial minority.

Zimmer v llcKeithen 485 F.2d L297,
l30TJsth-el;;T973) (en banc) ,
aff'd on other gfounds sub nom.

a
ilTtarsTGT?2Tffi: 6ffi17 -1;5.
2d-2iw-(Tq7 6) .

e;n{n nuJ --L



In combination with the majority requirement, there exists in the
T;";;;;fiti"if repertoire-the opl?g." requirement. In essence'
each candidate-musl limit his candidacv, in either a. rr::imarY or
a general election, to a oarticular plice on the bal1ot' Since
the place reguirement means absolutely.nothing in terms of resi-
dence, its uliimate ef f ect is to highlight the racial elent'ent
where it does exist.

Graves v Barnes 343 F.Suor:. 7O4,
725 (I^7.D.Tex. L972) aff 'd sub nom'
I{hite v Resester 4L2 U.S. ffi
ffizaffisl.

Whatever its
system tends
political or

constitutional status, it is clear that the majority
to strengthen d; ;ijorit''a ability to submerse a

;;.i;1;inoriti--io i''tolti-member district'

Graves v Barnes 343 F'SuoP' 704'
ffi.o-ffigzz) aff 'd' ggb nom'

white v Regester 4l-2ffi
ffiza 3f+-@rt'

[The use of unusually large election districts] weighs heavily in
iavor of a finding oi dilution or abridgennent of the riqhts of
minorities to vote in Lubbock's at-Iarge elections.

Jones v City of Lubbock, No.
CA-5-76-34, slio oD. at 7
(N. D. Tex. Jan . 20, 198 3 )



on the question of lack of openness it ^t*-*"1ating. Process or
candj.date selection process Lo blacks, Zimmer requires the Court
to consider whether Litner through law, custom, ot practice
blacks have been to any extent denied access to the slating
procedures

clark v Marenqro countv
ffi . sup[T-TrSoIrTSz
(s.o.AIa. L9791

The core of the inquiry as to slating is the ability of blacks
to get on the ballot. Today, formal prohibitions no longer Pre-
veni blacks from seeking county office. There are no screening
organizations or petition requirements. Blacks now register
and vote. But barriers remain even after the obvious legal
roadblocks have been removed.

Hendrix v l,lcKinney 450 F.Supp.
ffi1 (ffi-fa. 1e78)

However, this facet of the zi.mmer tes! is broader than minority
memuersi ability to be placed on the ballot; it elc?:nPas:??-, 

--barriers to *iilriiv-p"iticipation in any phase of-the political
;;;;;;;; in"ruaing i.ii=terins to vote, voling, and campaisnine
for office.

Mclntosh County, NAACP v CitY of /ii zrffigt

x

mi ta!'I trrii$'.rlsr

. a small group of whites act as an informal slating
organization tfrat Lxercises considerable control over city
poiiti." through its support, and endorsement of, and Paymen-
li quafifying iees for Llndidates favored by them-.. If such
i gi""p .ii=[,= and wields its power to aid only white candidates
it is itrong evidence of denial of access, s99 WEltl v_RggeE!'qrr
4L2 U.S. 75a, 766-67, 93 S.Ct. 2332, 2339-2340, 37 L.Ed.2d 3L4,
324-25 (1973) .

McIntcEh-leurl-ty,- NAACP v City o:[
ffitETass l=th cir- teze)

I

I

c.o^rh r.r.9 
-{>



Hi

rt is sufficient to observe that Fort worth businessmen andmercantile institutions form a natural community of interestsand thta some of them lend their support puuiic or private,financial or morar to individuali-seeking'office. tneevidence is undisputed that at no time has i,fre business communitysupported, collectively or otherwise, the candidacy of a brackor brown person.

Graves v Barnes 378 F.Supp 640, 646
@x . :.-T7Z.I ( three- j u&ie court )(Per curium) (on remand) , vacate<J in
light of reanoortionrnent T2m.T35,
45 L.Ed.2d. 662 (1975).

Another shadow of dilution is found in the high correlation
between endorsement by the C.C.A. [Citizens Charter Association]
and victory city wide. Meaningful participatj.on in the political
process must not be a function of grace, but rather is a matter
of right.

Lipscomb v Wise 399 F.Supp.
782, 790 (N.D.Texas 1975)

rev'd 551 F.2d 1043 (5th Cir. L977)
ffi qsz u.s. 535, s7 L.Ed.2d 4rI

,v
(Ie78).



,5.. the ertent to whictr.*.Tb.rs.ol-t!e
state or political suMivision bear the effects of dii:rimin'ation in

+! In_lch nmdel_.__
rttcal Dlocess: I*r

As we held in Kirksey, evid,ence of socioeconomic inequities
gives rise to a presumption that the disadvantaged minority
group does not enjoy access to the political process on an
equal basis with the majority.

Mclntosh CaurEL- NAACP v CiI'v o:[ - -_^. ,/D;rffi0ffi-t5175a (sth cir. \9791

&reas 8s

Cross v Baxter 604 F.2d 875,
aEtTcas-fml

It, did not, however, discuss whether these demonstrated educa-
tional and economic inequalities have the effect of discouraging
minority input into and participation in the Darien electoral
processl Wa have held that such disparities between majority
'and minority are so likely to make participation by the minority
difficult, that it, is presumed, subject to rebuttal, that dis--
ad.vantaged minority group members d.o not have access to the
politicil process on an equal basis with majority grouP members'

*

The mere existence of a definable minority area wherein some

9Ot of all black residents in the city live, the Court believes,
is itself a lingering effect of past official race discrimination.

Lipscomb v Wise 399 F.SuPP.
7{Z;-7Ed (N.D.rexas te75l ,

rev'd 551 F.2d 1043 (5th Cir' L977) ,

ffi 4i, u.s. 53s, s7 L.Ed.-2d 411 (1e78) '

Evidence of historical disc::irnination is relevant to dral.rino an
inference of purooseful discr-i-rnination, narticularlv in cases
such as this one where the evidence shows that discrirninatorvpractices \./ere commonly utilized, that they \./el:e abandonecl rvhen
enjoined by courts or made il1eqaI by civil riqhts lecrislation,
and that they were reolaced by laws and oractices which, thouohneutrar on their face, serve to maintain the status quo.

R.ogers v Lodge 73 L.Eld.2d 1019 (1982)

Inequality of
exi-stence of

access Ls an
economic and

infere/rce
eductional

which flows from the *
inequalities.

Kirksey v Board of Supervisors
of Hinds Countv 554 F.2d 139,
f4-sffi ffigz7) (en banc),
cert. denied, 434 U.S. 968 (L977)

'- t-ii- --

(



Failure to register may be, for examole, a residual effect of oast *
non-access, or of disproportionate education, emoloyment, income
;eve1 or living condj.tions. or it may be in whole or in part
attributable to bloc voting by the white majority, i.e., a black
may think it futile to register.

Kirksey v Board of Surrervisors
of Hinds Countv 554 F.2d 139,

banc) , cert. denied, 434 U.S.
e58 (LeT1T

The court concludes that the extent of past discrimination in
such areas as education, emoloyment, and health has . . . hindered
their ability to participate effectively in the nolitical Dr?ocess.
The extent of such discrimination has greatly narrowed in recentyears, but the effects on effective particioation in the political
process by minorities still exj-st.

Jones v City of Lubbock, No.ffi$76-me
(N.D.Tex. Jan. 20, 1983).

d



6.w
oyert or subtle racial

A variety of circumstances aggravat"d. P the mechanics of
the at-Iarge il;i", help to eiprain q+; consistent defeat:
black voter alienation itemrnin'g from discrimination and

orher d.isadva;t;;;;r intimiaatlon of black candidates and

their workers; use by certain white candid'ates and their

"rppott"t= 
of racial campaign tactics'

Black Voters v l'lcDonough 565
ffiALff

x

il-
,l
llIt



There are no formal prohibitions against blacks seeking office
in Mobile County. Since the Votinq Rights Act of 1955, blacks
register and vote without hindrance. . However, the court
has a duty to look deeper rather than rely on surface appearance
to determine if there j-s true openness in the Process
One indication that local politj.cal processes are not equally
open is the fact that no black person has ever been elected to
the at-large school board,. This is true although the black
population level is almost one-third.

Brown v. Moore 428 F.Supp.
@ ll2reD.Ara. !9761,
aff 'd rnen . 575 r'.2d 298 (5th Cir. 1978

To the contrary, the absence of black elected, officials ina county where approximately 35* of the voting popuration isblack is an indicatj.on that access of blacks [o- tLe politicalprocesses of the county is not yet unimpeded.

Kirkse{ v Board of Superiors
of Hinds Counry; MiE=.---552-F. 2d

banc)
ce::t. denied 434 U. S . 958 (1977)

There is, however, a history of undisputable, pervasive de jureracial. segregation in Georgia and Fulion county and tha- factis enti.tled to be given weight. Ialhere, a! herer ro brackhas ever been elected to tha legislative body under attack, thatfact is a strong indication of continuing ral:< of openness.

Pitts v Busbee 395 F.Supp.3il2'o (N. D . ca . tsz sl ,vacated and remanded 53G E.2d
ffi--Tffi' ffi.-Tr%I .-

The district court found that Henderson's election cast into t
doubt plaintiff's statistical evidence as well as the claim
that the at-large system itself diluted minority votes. The
election of a single black, however, is not conclusive evi-
dence thatthe votes of the minority are not being diluted.

N.A.A.C.P. By Campbell v. Gadsen
Countv School Board 591 F.2d
978, 983 (CAl1 1982)

' ' 3!""'','''



Showingsofunresponsivenessandlackofaccessmakeastrong
ditution case. The capacit,y of a.governing body to respond

to the needs or it= coi-tstiIir.""v i;, in laige measure, what

makes that body represent"ti"".'_ry.-*. pitlin, Lhe Concep!

of Represent"tio" )gg og72l ' rdGTIy' electoral processes

ffiovide .r,-instit;i1911 and periodic method

ofguaranteeinggovernmentalresponsiveness.'.ourconcernwith
erections and electoral *"Iti".iv, ;la particularly with whether

elections are free and g"""i";, iesults from our conviction
that such machinery is ,r"..""ity to insure systematic responsive-
ness." Id. at 234.

Nevett v Sides 571 F '.2d 209 ' 22,3 '"/
ffiigzaEert-- denied' 445 u's'
esr (r980).

Conceptuallyr prot€sting dilution conflicts with the political
theory of majority control. It reflects a challenge to the
usual election system where the candidate of the majority of
the voters wins an electi.on. But the courts have held that
when a majority of voters, and the successful governing
authority elected by that majority, simply ignore t,he govern-
mental needs of a substantial minority of the voters and remains
arrogantly unresponsive to the voting strength of that minority,
there has been a dilution of those votes that violates the
United States Constitution.

David v Garrison 553 F.2d 923,
rcas_Tg.il

Responsiveness in this Sense must of necessity be measured
onfy in terms of the effective powers had by the governmental
unil involved--here minority employment, minority representa-
iiot in appointive offic€sr and the provision of essential
governm"ttlif services to minority grouPs and individuals'

Washington v rinl?y 664 F.2d
gTi , Wrceq 19 81), cert . denie<!
LOz S.Ct . 2933 (198?.) .

As is true of all the Zimmer factors, the inquiry into governmental
responsiveness is aesi@-to test whether an at-large system has
made elected officials so secure in their positions and has made
the flack vote so unnecessary to success at the po11s that the
day-to-day governmental services provided to, and input secured
from, all segments of the electorate as a matter of course are
bej-ng withheld from the black community. The allocatj-on of jobs
is only one piece of the puzzle.

Tq!"+1!v.foseph 559 F.2d L265, ../tzet (cAs rg-77)-



It can safely be concluded that commissioners who are so oblivious
to the black community are secure in their positions. If they are
insecure, it is not because of the black vote. The commissioners
appear to lack even the formal political contacts that would
certainly exist if the black vote were considered important. It
should be axiomatic in a democratic society that a governing body
without such ties cannot be responsj.ve.

Hendrix v McKj4nsI 460 F.Supp. ''ffi3 (M.D.ara. lezg)

perhaps the most sensitive and difficult inquirlz a district court
must Londuct under Zimmer is whether the elected officials in
question are unrqspffi to minority needs. The evidence relevant
io this question is like1y to be hotly disputed and wideran{ing,
so that the appellate court's need for detailed findings of'fact
and conctusions of law under rule 52 (a) is acute.

Mclntoslr Countv, NAACP v CitY of
Dar -0ffi-a-til7sg E dr. Le7el u

- a!=--**-.

The analysis of the responsiveness question requires a consid.er-ation of two distinct problems. The first is the provision ofgovernmental services to minority communities. This is the
area in which citizens most typically rely on their local govern-
ment for equal treatment. The second problem faced in making
the responsiveness analysis "concerns the distribution of municlipal jobs and appointments to various boards and commissions. "

Hendrix v Joseph 559 F.2d 1265, /i,x-ilEasffi

The second factor concerns legislative responsiveness to the
particularized needs of the minority group. There are two
iomewhat distinct facets to his issue. The first concerns
the provisions of municipal services to neighborhoods PoPu-
tatel by minority group members...The other facet of the
r.=porr"iveness inquiry- concerns the distribution of municipal
jobi and appointments to various boards and commissions'

David v Garrison 553 r.2d 923, ./
6Tca5W



The two distinct facets of this issue are (1) the extent andquallty of municipal servj.ces to the neighborhoods populated
by nhiority group members, and (21 a distribution to them of
municipal jobs and appointments to various boards and commissions.

. A concomj-tant of this is the equal treatment of blacks bycity officials and various department heads and their staffs.

Hendrix v Joseph 559 F.2d L265,j7s.5-lEAs rgEj-

Kirksev v City of Jackson, Mj-ss. ./
451 F.Supp. L282, L292 (S.o.Miss. -
L9781, vacated and rernanded 525
F . 2d 2 1-ffrTTi-1!trT'l-

county jobs do not necessarily need to be allocated proportionatelyto every grouP in the electorlte before a local g"".l*ental entityis deemed to ue responsive. Hiring aisparity is relevant at ar1
9n1y because it is luggestive of tf,e iitt rhat rhe commissionbelieves it can treat-black citizens unequarry with impunity.such a belief, of course, is in turn i--=1 ptom of dirution.

:l.:.u-4T1re:Gc!-tl-!c

comparisons of various electoral configurations in ord,er toascertain which alternative most tairiy assures responsivenssto black concerns and besr ensures urair*I;;;: iI"".n. poliricalsystem is appropriate when choosing-$; appropriate remedytor an unconstitutional electoral iystem. See e.g., U.S. v.Board of supervisors , 57r F.2d 951 ,'ga6 (cas, itidi: However,when considering wheiher an-existing-Jistem is unconstituionalsuch comparisons are not called rorl-ti:e cruclal guestion iswhether government officiars at pieseit 
"." t ot are not, unre_sponsive to black needs.

ffi"xu%#i 604 F.2d 87s,

,..j_

It would not be an answer to
needs of the black community
to some segrments of the white
of the white community.

evidence of unresponsiveness to the
that the City is also unresponsive
community vis-a-vis other segments

Mclntosh Countv,Dffi;-offil= NAACP v City
753, 760 (5th

of
cI=. L97 9l

is. u

,.1'
it



€errt+in lA

such a lack of responsiveness may raise the fair in.ference
that within the tolal social, economic and political context
in which the electoral system oPerates' its practical effect
has been to cancel out that residual political strength--
Uasea upon the continuing threat of rePrisal at the polls--
that is normally possessed,.even by currently outnumbered
interest grouPs in the voting constituency'

Washington v Finlay

-r3, 
92L (CA4 1981) ,

LO2 S.Cr. 2933 (1982)

664 F.2d
cert. denied

The court found not only that the city had been insensitive
to the need for black participation in city government but
also that the commission had been less responsive to black
areas than white ones with respect to providing municipal
services. These services included temporary relief from
drainage problems, construction and resurfacing of roads,
and construction of sidewalks.

Bolden v. Citv of ltobile, ala.
ffiza z
and remanded 446 U.S. 55, 64 L.Ed.2d.
ar(Le'ii6l-

The underrepresentation is all the more indicatj.ve of unresponsive-
ness in that 9 of the 13 black appoj.ntments are on two boards,
both subject to federal guidelines prohibiting discrimination in
their make-up. As a result, blacks have been excluded from
meaningful participation in the county's political affairs.

Hendrix v McKj.nney 450 F.Supp. "/ffi3 (M.D.eIa. 1978)

-ffi.F--- -:..:.lwGi-.

Responsiveness or lack
disciminatory intent in
system--a question not
to do with impact.

thereof, however, goes to proving
the maintenance of the electoral

befcre this court. It has nothing

v. Gadsen
Countv School Board 591 F.2d
978, 983 (CA11 1982)

-.rI



,.----f 

-

;hdtl;,4-tlie filiCt-findeilying'ffiitat"" oi potitic"t sunairi-
sion's use of such vdting qualific--ation, prerequisite to voting, or
standard, practie,e or piocedure is ten

A tenuous state poricy in favor of at-large districting mayconstitute evidence that other, improper motivations liv
behind the enactment or maintenance oi the plan. The absenceof a significant and legitimate state policy behind districtingprovisions has been an important factor in ieveral cases finding
intentional d.iscrimination.

Nevett v SideE 571 F.2d 209, 224
l -IgzeJ;Grt. deniecl 446 u.s.
esl (1e80).

The purpose of the Zimmer state policy inguiry is to decide
whether an inference can be d.rawn that the use of multimember
districts is rooted in racially discriminatory motives; the
reason for inclusion of "tenuous state policy" in the Zimmer
listing is that a state policy in favor of at-Iarge districts
that is shown to be "tenuous" is evidentiary of invidious intent.

Cross v Baxter 604 F. .2d 875, /'
BEZ:E-Bs Tffigzs)

City-wide representation is a legitimate interest, and at-
large d.istricting is ordinarily an acceptable means of
preserving that interest. See Wise v. Lipscombr -- U.S. --t
98 S.ct. 15, 18 , 54 L.Ed.zd-A @7tl , ffiIfFq mand,ate and
stavinq iudgrment of 551 F.2d 1043 (5ttr
longevity of Mobile's at-Iarge commission government cannot
insulate it from review.

Bolden v City of Mobile, AIa.
571 F . 2d 238 , 243 (CA5 197I ), rev'd

and remanded 446 U. S. 55, 6a f,lEffia
U7(13-B'of

!q-x-rer--

i, .." t g.;d.in';"i*il*