Velasquez v. Abilene Court Opinion; Attorney Notes

    I

I

l0l6 ?25 FEDEBAL REFORTEB, 2d SERIEI VELASQUEZ v. CITY OF ABILENE, TEL
Cll.$?llF,d lalt (lt0a)

1017

memben, the UnitBd Stateg Datrict Court
for the Nortlern Dietrict of Texaa at Abi-
lene, Halbert O. Woodward, Chief Judge,

entcrcd judgment lrcm which plaintiffs ap
pealed, and the defendant city craa-appeal-
ed lrom deniel of sttorney fees The Court
ol Appealo, Garza, Circuit Judge, held that:
(1) although trial court in reeolving claim

thrt Voting Bightr Act was violated waE

not requircd to reount and dircusa every

bit of evidence offered to it, it nrae required

to discuos all substantial evidence contrary
to itr opinion, and becaure both constitu-

tional snd Etatutory clrime of the plaintiffs
involved extraordinary fact oriented issueg

and becsus€ district court failed to take

not€ of Eubstsntisl contrary evidence

preaentcd by plaintiffs, therc wes failure to
make detailed findinga of fact as required

by rule; (2) racial discrimination need only

be one purporc, and not even primary pur'
poge, of official act in otder for violation of
Fourteenth und Fifttenth Amendmenh to
occur; and (3) new amendments to Voting
Rigtrtr Act were meant to rilinEtat€ results

test, ss against contention that the

amendmentr did not eliminatc intent re-

quirement but inst€ad merely eliminated

need to find direct evidence of discriminato-

ry intenL

Affirmed in Part end remanded for
further findingt of lact and conclusions of
law.

Prtrick E Higginbotham, Cirtuit
Judge, concurred and filed opinion.

l. Federd Courts c_Z?{
Where plaintiffa' complaint included al-

legations of constitutional violations as well

&s Btatutory violations, pleintifft could Iot
be heard to complain th8t trisl court coultl

have decided oase upon statutory groundr

alone and therefore imprcperly decidod use
upon constitutional groundr.

2. Electionr el2
In voting dilution cases, many qucc-

tiom asked !o det/rrmine whetjcr there hus

tm, rnd requcclnt tubstitudon of h€r h€irs ss

Fnicr.

Gnl court, involing divenity of citizenrhip
juidictiur,28 U.S.C. | 1332. The Diatricr
Coutt grve judgrmnt in frvor ol tlre Wal-
tcn for 153{,1165{ rnd 350,m, plur ioter-
ct rcrpectively. Wdten v. Inexo Oil
hapny, 6rr F.Supp. 2l (S.D.Ub!.rC79).
Thi! Coun rf(irmd. Waltan v. Inexo Oil
Coa,pay, 612 F.2d E91 (5ttr Cir.l980), err.
&abt, lil U.S. 990, l0l S.Ct l?q, 68
Lr.,t 2d m (1981I

ltc Dbtrict Court denied a rmtion by the
Wdt..lr to.sr6r r strtutory penalty pumu-
.!t to Section U-9-23, l/ircrlsippi He
Aamtttd, egeinrt lnerco for rubjecting
ttrem to u uncuccessful eppeat. ttre Dis-
trict Coun cibd Phocror v. Giwndtner,
ruprr, whercin thir Court held thet e rimi-
hr Alrbarm etetutc. providing e penalty
{rinst uuucce.sful appellanta conetituted
r "rubrtratjve" nrle tlrrt would be appliod
in federd divenity caser. The Dirtrict
Cod poirted out that the AlEbrms statute
prcvided r 1096 penalty for unsuccessful
eppeelr in "the appellate court," whercas
tle Xiuiuippi .tatutr rcferr€d to sppals
to tle'Supreme Court" Thue, the District
Court dirtinguished the Mississippi etatute,
hoHing t}et it rppliec only to 8pp€Els to the
rt& rupreme court and "cannot be con-
rtruGd to be geaeral in nature."

Ia uponre to our ertification, the Uie.
rirrippi $preme C.ourt erplained that the
penelty rb epplier to appealo taken to
Xirirdpfl circuit courtr from county
court+ llisr.Code Inn. g ll-61-?9 (Supp.
leE2); Jolrasoa bnitsl Inc r,. Sr'gza, ,ll0
Sord l8C0 (Uiss.l982), and thrr when a
crl fitr wit}in th€ .tatut8, the sssesEment
ol t.bc peaelty ir mandatory, not discr€tion-
ty. Lovk*i v. Lowicki, {29 So.2d 9l?
(Xig.l988); HEnT v. Cr,tcr,39:| So.2d 13{6,
f$& (Xir.lg8l). Momver, the Missiasippi
Cout erpldned lhrt "in Oe prcsent con-
t i, the Unit€d Stste. Court of Appealr

a Tltl. 12. Cod. of Nrbrmr. t& [Z-ZZ-72
(lgrt) providcr h rcLvut prn:

Wtca r Juftnal tr dccrcc lr cntaEd or
lanLnd ,a mEy, wh.th6 d.bt a drm.
raaa, ud tlre rem h8 b.cn iaycd 6 rp
F.l by thc crEuio of bood, yiih aurlry, il
th. rppclhtc csn rttrrru ah. judtmnt ot
r!. 6|n bclry. lt Du,t r.lro at.r Jrd8mntltllrt dl a |!y ot thc oblitm m th. bond,
lc tlo emt o, th. rflkm.d JudSmol, lO

for the Fifth Circuit rnd thir Court ocorov
equivrlent positions-we erc the appe[rtl
coufir charged to hear dirtct appealr u of
rigtrt." Thb antwerr our initial conera by
eatablirhing that the language of tle rtai
ute relerring to rppealr decided by the ,.Su-

preme Court" ws not intended to exchtdc
appeelr to other coud^r.

dthough diaparaging tbe "rubrtantivo
procedural" distinction ar a nreru of pgrt
ing the En..e wetere, the Missirsippi &run
explained the policiea underlying Section
ll-s-E in 8 rmnner helpful to us both in
asressing the impact of Section ll-S.28 on
the policiee of thir Court end in our own ur
of the "aubstantiveprocodural" shibbolethr
The penalty rt8tuto, the Mississippi Court
explained, exprerss the Stste'! interest in
discouraging unfounded appeals. This, we
are told, pmtectE pot€nti8l appelleea and
also tJre caseload of the Mi8sissippi sppellste
courts. Our own Federal Rule ol Appellate
Procedure 38 expressea a similar policy of
discouraging frivolous appeals,. albeit one
that is not ao mechanically enforced. More-
over, this Court has an int€rcst in ptvent,
ing the frivolous appealr that Section ll-8-
23 shoo from the doorwaya of the Migsis.
sippi courts from freeloading onto our own
docket aa an alternative.

The Miasissippi Supreme C.ourt hu elso
expressly aaserled thct Section 113-E
pmvides "a messurc of compensation for
the successful appellee, compensation for
hit having endured the slingr and armwa of
rucccssful apg:llate litigation." Thus, the
onleal of defending an appeal ia viewal by
Mississippi law as an injury to the appellee
Following thie ruaroning, application of the
Etetute in this Court as redrcss for tlrat
injury is merely rccognizing and applying a
Mississippi cause of action. Thus, if it is
neceEssry to categorize the etatute, as e
prelude to either spurning or embracing it

lrrent drme3or tlEr6n, md tha @ltr o,
tharppclbr!cost....

!. f.R.A.P. 3E povi&r:
hm$a tN bLy

lf I cout of rppealr rhdl detmlne thra
rn rpp.d lr lrivolout, it trt.y rwrrd Jutdrmta rnd d0th or doublc oott to thc
rppcllc..

la divenity, we cen confidently s8y thot
Scdion ll-$-E bsen the proper "eubetan'

tive" crodentialr end mey accordingly enter

tls .rncturty ol this forum. Pr,o{lnr v.

Gillxiodr,rrr, 6E? tr'2d r82, l&9 (6th Cir.

lyn).
Se rcgrrd the queation of which appeale

rn rithin the new increase of the penalty

tom 6% to 16% to be a question of purely

rtrte lew. The tireireippi Supreme Court

hg rnswered that the 16% rate, which took

eflect on July 1, 1980, spplies to appeals of
judgments rtndered on or after th&t date'

Becaue€ the judgmentr in thig cEs€ werc

rcrdemd on Mey 2, 1919, and the decision to
rpped or not sppeal could have lrcen made

ri thrt time, the 6% penalty appliea to both
judgmente. Accordingly, the caae ig re-

iarnaea to the Dirtrict Court lor entry of
judgment in accordanc€ with thie opinion.'

REVERIIED AND BEUANDED.

Urdr VEI"ASQUEZ' Ierleh Morclen4
Anolir A$trre, Bcn fuulrrc, rnd John
McCorrn, Indivldrulty rnd on behrlf of
dt Bhcl rnd Mcrlcrn-Amerlcrn Cltl'
lcnr ol thG City of Abllene, Terg,
Plrlatlffr-Appelhnt+

%

Th. CITY OF ABILENE, TE)GS, E. HrlL
B. Proctor, K $fcbrtcr, LD. Ililton, J.

Bddgc+ A.E" Forlc, Jr, rnd J. ltodrl'
Itca thc Mryor rnd Clty Councilmen of
thc Cl0 ol Abllcnc, Terg, rll ln their
officlrl crprcltlq Dcfcndrntr'Appcl'
L.a.

No E2-1630'

Unitsd Stat4s Court of APPealo,

Fifth Circuit.

March 2, 198{.

Reherring Denied March 29, l98tt.

In a challenge to en rt-large election
tylt E la relection ol Abilene city council

I Wc hevc Srutcd thr motlon ruStesdng the
dret! o, Crtattfi-rpprtlenq Mn. Dclphlr w.l-



l0lt ?25 FEDEf,AL NEPOBTEN, 2d SERIEI

by one plaintiff thrt he and hie fanily
ruffered continuout thrcrts and sbu!6.
while and after hb wife rought election !o
city council end tettinrcny of anotier plain-
tilf that rhe erpountercd hootility and un-
coopention fmm ounty clerl't office in the
city when she rttemptad to file ar candidata
for juatice of the peee in lg?6 and for
crunty clerk in 1978 was rclevant arxl auE
stantid in light of factors to be considercd
by the court Voting Righte Act ol 1965,

! t u amended, {2 U.S.C.A. 0 lyZB.

E. Elcctlonr c.l2
New amendmentr to Voting Rights Act

wetr meant to rcinstate r€Eultr test, as
egainrt @ntention that tle amendments did
not eliminatc int€nt r€quitrment but in-
rtud merely eliminatpd neod to find direct
evidence of dirriminatory intenl Voting
RiStrts Act of f965, g 2, as amended, di
u.sc.A. 5 197&

9. Elcctiou €12
In challenge to voting syetem under

Voting Rights Act" as in ca.ees under Four-
tc+nth and Fifteenth Amendments, triul
judge io to male his ultimsts ruling aft4r
examination of "totality of circumstancer."
Voting Rights Act of 1965, g 2, ar amended,
{2 U.S.C.A. $ 197&

10. Fcdcnl Clvll hoccdurc e?frI
Acceptrxl rule which allows sttorney

fees !o b€ awanled to pn:vailing dcfendants
where plaintiffc' urit ia frivolous iu pro1rer
rule, and fees are not to be granted merely
beceuse defendant prtvails.

William L Garett, Dallas, Tex., Gale
Patterson, Fort Worth, Tex., for plaintiffs-
appellanu.

Harvey Cargill, Jr., City Atty., Gary Lan-
den, John T. Patt€rson, Karcn L. Anderson,
Asst. City Attys., Abilene, Tex., for defend-
antreppelleea.

Appeals fr.om the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texae

Before GAMA, WILLIAMS ard HIG-
GINBOTHAI[, Circuit Judgea.

YET.AIIQUEZ v':'H?i,fJrNE' rnc 101e

GABZA, circuit Judge: 
* 

, ,-'-*ffiflXJti'ff1ffiff ;:il,1'"iil:i:f;
We hgve befort us sn appesr Dv Prarn- it. enrlomment "*rHffi*f#tt;A

ffiiffi:nn'iH#t'I:'f,HffJ, **:'lrff-,ad a succeas rEt€ or sz5

dclarotory judgment 
"ntt. 

o:.n"t -:.'l: *rccnt rince l9S and lfi) lnrtent.unco
.tt.giog th"t the lt'largp election.lysErn ffi;- TG rscorrl showc that no indcpn'

g-#,I[:'"^llit!it,"T,ii+[,]H:ifi,:1,|ffi fi "*ffi il"H""Ii:
Arrendnpnts, e! werr aa * "'l;;,;";'; euccesfulty.

ffi }I:L#"T;l[tff '"tr',x;":;ut"L:"r.TJffi 'l'ffi 
i!:r':':]:

ffi;il; iil ihe denicr ;i il ;;d; iiy"iii*':'f ;:ffffi11;'.'i'I i;
t"^ilftrI"j;;nized 

ar r citv in IE85' ;;"-l^:T"friticar svoem' the rack or

From 18$ ro r8e2 ardermen ;:L':,iffi f:X".'sr,$*""''J,'$ ll;:,1,ff[','l-

i"Jfr ,',l"'ffdlllH;TJli'fr i::HT'"i".,:'.f :"i:?1,ili.Hll'il:;l:
l'#:,hT#JH',ilfl l'^1;'],",[ii-:41':1"*ii"*t-;',,""T:l*xi:H:xi

tH;l-T"'ffIlif "'I.i' "-ffi 
ii;",H v:*::f i11 : m:;l5':i;:lJ"*i

fr:Jl[t'H*mt".,]m:tx;r ffil,ii'{:,rirrtu'Hr init
fiffi";;tt"d;-"ti"'gt elections The *lun':l :o'
city rdoptrd a home rule tr'"Lt'in r9f r' Appelhnrr rlro cllege thst while it is uue

continuing t}e at'large "'o'"1I'v'*rn 

- 
r" thaione Black and two Mexican'Amertcatu

190c Abilene adopud its *L?ffi;t;;: i'u-"tGn "r"t*a 
to the council sine ltrs'

contiauing 8n tt-Iarg€ electioi- scheme and all three wert suomored by CBG and tho*

rln adding e majority ""*"'i'i*i""t "tttt"a 
*u* 

1n"* 
tokeu pul fsissnl by a

Under the prcaent rt'lrr1e 
""*- 

tn"* rleting--orgcnization in whicl minorittus

rc rir (8)o.nrilmra rnd ;'Jl;l 
"il; 

P:: 
*' inrluence under thc currcnt

;*iffi erb run for r spscrfic ,rat End syrtam'

rrut uil hy r nriority *"li*'*' "* The court below concluded that thtre wus

d1g8ere4 with two (2) councilmen elect'etl no invidiour purooe khind the sdoPtit'n "l'

each year rnd the mayor.t"l"y'tt'i^t yu"' the 8t-lsrge elcttion echeme ut any of tlrc

Tbree coucilnrn mrrt rrvJJn-iie ioah datteof itrulorlLion Thetriul cuurtexulrr-

cide of the city, tls- on tr'"'J"i*ia"' "na in"d the e'itl"nte according lo Lhe ztmnrr

the mayor may reaide 
"ny*t'u'" 

within the facurs' Zimmer v' McKeithen' 486 l'zrl

city. fUlA (5th Cir'193)' aff"J on othu groun'ls

m:qf'Xf **}lhi''{d{{f 
df'-f-ti"#;}t:i'i'${

;#;t;r.d ; i* "t""' 
under the plain- was Eurrrcrel

tillr' prcpoeed 
"r*tion 'v"*i'' 

;i;J;i; a.cmonitl! an invidioug purpoae trehind

rould oortitutc 'E's 
p"t*'I"i'ti;;p'i": th€ mlin&n-anoe of the syEtzm lt conulud-

tion of one dttrtt one ii'c;;i;;" ed thert'was no such invidiou8 PurF)str'

llcrican-Aurerica* t't"" #i^tl}t,ed ; Finally'-the court found tJrst slthough thc

rle couocjr rince rg?8. All ffi ffi;;;- votini-Righr" Acr amendmentE 0f 1982, 42

rond by the citizena r"'"s"Tt"l';"[;- u's'c:A' S lg?i] (wc8t supp'19!]i])' alrul-

m-L I whii&snglo aoln'nilJ1"Iif"i- ished eny neccssity to prcve t discnminato-

be! rtrtutoty violetbn ere eho uked
rhsa ortitutiond violrtion cleim ir svdu-
etad, rad thur lrid court c.n ondder both
cortitutbrul rtd rtrtulory claimr togeth-
Gr. Votiag Right Act ol f0E6, I 2, r.
r'.oodcd, 12 US.CA. I lyB.
t. f.dcnl Coorte oE55

,. Cleuly emomoru rtendld ir epplicr-
bh in both conrtitutionrt end ctrtutory vot-
ing dilution c.* Votin8 Rightr Act of
1966, I 4 er enrended, {2 U.S,C.A. I tg?lt;
a2 U.S.CA. g l9?l et eq.; Fod.Buler Civ.
hocRule 5Es), A U.S.C.A.

t trGdcsrl Courte cgll
Althorgh trid oun ia rulving cleim

t^brt Voting Right! Act ya.r violeted was
mt required to trcount rnd dircuu every
tit ol evllence offercd to it, it wu rcquircd
to diEu. dl rubdtntirl evidence contrary
to itl odnion, rnd becrure both conrtitu-
tborl .td ttatutory clrimr of the phintiffs
involved ertreordinery frchrientod ircuea,
rd bqure dirtrict oua failed to toLe
mtc of rrlbat ntid contrsry evidence
poerented by pleintiffr, therc wt! feilure to
artc &triled findingr of fect er required
by rule, urd rcmand war necearery. Voting
Rigttl Act of 1965, ! { as rmended, {2
US.C.A. | 198; {2 U.S.C.A. I l9?t er
ral.; Fed.Ruler Civ.Proc.Rule S{r), A U.S.
C.A.; U.SC.A. Const.Amends. l,t, lS.

f Ehcrhu el2
ln unending Voting Righb Act in

lEl. Coryreu intcnded to lighten buden
ol plrintilh in voting dilution crrer. Vot-
iag RiStL Act of 1965, g { r.r rmended, rt2
u.scr t lgIs.

L Corrtltudoarl Lr -2ltEletlooe e-12
Rrcjrl dirriminrtion ueed only be one

prrpore, ud not even primary purpoee, of
officid rct in order for viotation ol Four-
taeatl end Filteenth Amendment! to ocur.
Votia3 Rightr Act of 1065, | 2, u rnrnded,
{2 US.CI. I l0?&

?. IrrldF! Corpondor c.E0
ID tuit to chellenge tt-lrrg€ etection

rptcra loc relrrtion of city council mem-
hrri ctrt ia evidence, including teetimony



IO2O ?25 FEDEBAL REFORTE& 2d SERIES
ry pur?ole in order to rtt'.t"id;;1[;;ii3'io e.vioration' tral cont
_:il,ffi H[Lt].ir::* d#:i;:,1$id;ffisfftr
,n[:ig*###i *i1:, ffii,ifiirydHi;:;ii; ;ffr,i',

mtri$trtl,dd;lr#s *fFl,tlX*E+;ffi :Iil',Jfl,jiiJh;i,,";* 
#j1.,l,*;4iq1 ;1 llffiT:,T,H'il

$ffiI$flffilH;ffld;;tT #"fu*a;'n.rl:il[{ffi'
i:l,,,.:-u" Ll;LI:il.* or pmor b airution T"lff *,*r15 ,i,;fi;i!
ffi ftl$tr *" *,ior"iio,i"o7'r# 

U*1,f,:ir*"lfr'Jffiil:*:':fJ

Xf*fi,t** l,lts f*'ffi*ffimtr*frm
:.1. 3td ,;d; il;;i":1il*: :l ffi""1"n 

with partio"rraritv tr*i'

ffiqiffit't,,,ffi 'tr "lq{g,,-F1#i#+#*i

ffij$ffirsffiffi-ffi
fis,It ;[,xi;gn**:"d ffiT :k,Jttfi,#Tr,frntfi#court crrmot oa.rider both tlo comtitution- out discuasrng sub.t8ntisl rcleyant con-;,,ffi 

^fi.,f,"# T#-"Tt" ;il?: u,ry_:,[T,-,r," ."q, ^,*,,",i ililnoat bebr, r-t tr*rnril.u" *:*t a. 
-- 

o" 
"",,* i*?tl*.Tt LTf,:il.rtrI

ffiffiffil+,ffiffiffi
-*ffi;*"*rytrre rubrrei- ;-Ail".il'lfffJr"lt, "I^#,il

vELASqUEz v. CITY OF ABILENE TEL
Clbrntfjd ll!? (ll0')

102 I

member district in the light of past and

Drcaent reality, political and othcrwiee'"
'Wnit" 

". 
Wour, {12 U.S. ?55, ?69-?0, 93

s.cr 2ssa 2s41, s7 L.A.% 8r4 (r9?8). The

Supr-r" Court has squartly held that the

frfing of intentional dirriminetion ncces-

u,n in voting dilution cas{l undcr the

Fourt*enth Amendment, and by implicetion

un&r the Fifteenth Amendment, ir factual,

mvcmed bv Rule 52'a clearly erroneoug

It na.ra. ibg"o u. tdge, 458 U'S' 613'

r02 S.Ct. SnL,78L.W.Zd 1012 (1982). We

hrve no doubt that the finding of discrimi-

mton effect or result under the Voting

nightt e"t cmendments of 1982 is also gov-

.ria Uv the cleerly ononeous st'sndar'd,

rnd shiie appellants try to srgue that dilu'

tion casea involve c mixed question of law

rnd lact not governed by the clearly errone'

oug rtandard, we cannot embrace this argu'

rrent. The clearly erroneous stsndard is

rpplicable in both constitut'ionsl and statu-

tory votinS dilution cases.

The opinion ol the court below is long

rnd tletailed snd at first lilush seems fairly

invulnerable to a Rule 52{a) attack' How-

ever, becauae of its f8ilure to take note of

rubatantial contrary evidence presenlrd by

the appellants, it is nec.essary to rcmand the

case ior further findings. It may be that

the court below did not cnnsider cuch evi-

dence substsntiel or did not crslit its validi-

tv- bul, we arrc unable to determine from a

lilent rccora the thought processea of the

court below.

[6] In passing the 1982 smendment to

th. Voting nignt" Act, Congress reacted to

the Supreme 
-Court's 

decision in City ot
Mobite v. Boliten, 446 U'S. 55, fm S'CL

1{90,64 L.Ed'A 4? (1980), which had held

thst a clsim of dilution of minority voting

rtrencth could eucceed only ug>n a showing

ol d;riminatory purpore. By passing the

lW amendment, C,ongress rejected the

puryore etrndard in voting dilution claimc

ind eubEtituted in its place a results test

under the tot8lity of the circumstsnces' As

rtetud in the S€nsts RePlrt on the

tmendmento:

The amendment to the language of

Soction 2 ia tleeigned to make clcar that

plaintiffr need not prove I di*rinlinat"r)
ouroose in the adoption or maintenattce

of the chattenged tystem oflsicl practicc

in order to eatablish a violation' l)ltin-
. tiffs mugt either prove uuch in&nt, or'

altcrnatively, must show that thc chirl-

lcnged Byst€m or practice, in the urntuxt

of e-ll the cincumctsnces in the juriulrctiun

in question, results in minorities bcing

denied equal sccess to the political pro-

oeE8.

S.Reo. No. ,tl?, yrth Cong., 2d liess, re-

ointed in 1982 U.S.Code C,ong & Arl Newu

izz, ms. tt is clear that Cortgres lntended

to lightcn the burden of pluintiffs in votirg

dilution cases.

We are being asked to write on s clean

slat€ under thls stsndard. If under the

intentional discriminatory purprse atandard

we required detailed findings rif all relevant

substantial evidence, we certainly should

reouire no less under the results test whcn

deciding whether therc ha8 ln*n a Voung

Rigtt8 Act violation.

The court below held that the decision of

the citiz.ns of Abilene "to p€rFltuat€ the

at-large *heme, aa providul in.the 19ll and

1962 citv chsrt€r8, wus a conscientious deci-

cion msde on the basis of available duu and

reflective of the pervasive tDlitical theory

of the time." (Memorandum Opinion at

fD. With regarrls to the 1962 adoption of

the at-large eletion scheme, plaintiffs ar-

cue with some merit that more should have

f,een said about this cvent, which not only

continued the at-lerg€ election scheme but

algo added a majority vote requirement

t6l A fact completely rgnurcd by the

-utt U"to* wur the plrintiffs' cvidence

abut the extrcme level of racial tcnsion

during the time period of the 1962 charur

"*unir"nt 
, as well as evidene that it wus

well known at the timc that at-large elec-

tions, majority vote requirementc, and stag-

gend terms tended to dilut'e minority vot-

ing 1ror""t. There wu alco evidcnce

,"ount"a that thc chairman of thc Chancr

bommission, tluring thc 1962 thuttr cl''c'

tion, strtsl that one of the reuom for the

adoption of the majority vot: requirontcnt

was to insure a minority could not' gain

r i.^ri,1

i..'!'t ;)i\( i't' '

\
l. '-ilt-'



1022 ?25 }.DDDI'AL REPOITTEII, 2d SDIUIIS

conrol of tho city govornmcnt. Itrcofll,
vol. 6 at 605. Dsfondante contlnd, how-
ever, that this ltat4ment in conlcxt re_
ferred only to I minority in the abstract
political theory eenge rather than in a raciul
sense. The court below, however, failed to
discuss this evidence in tny of its fintlingr.
\ilhile the di8trict court miy be correct-in
itr.finding that tle ciry in 1962 adopred
st large elections only for reasons having trl
do with political theory, we think a niorc
detailed discussion of its 1962 adoption of
the at-large eystem would have been wisc.
C€rt8inly the addition of the majority vott
requirrment indicates that the city rlid not
unthinkingly continue its old aflarge sys-
tcm. We are all aware that in lg6i therc
wes much racial tanaion and that a racially
discriminatory purpose msy well have coex-
ist4d with political theory in the adoption of
the at-lsrge sy8t€m st that time. Racial
diocrimination need only be one purposc,
and not even a primary purpose, of an
official act in order for a violation of the
Fourteenth and the Fifteenth Amendments
to occur. *e Arlingtan Heights v. Mcuo-
politan Housing hrp., aE U.S. 252 at 265,
9r, S.Ct. 55s ar E6S, b0 L.A.U 4ffi err):.
We ree m reason why under the amended
Voting Righta Act of lgg2 thia would not be
even mone !o.

, Thg rnot important of plainriffs-appl-
l8nt!'argument is thst the court erred initr tr.eEtrent of whctlrcr mimriti- have
equal acceae to the poliri"el prccess, and in
pertigular the alating process. The CBC, as
rtatcd, 

-effectively contrcls Abilene politics,
End it follows that thia access factoi ir the
key in an analysis of vote dilution in Abi-
lene. Altlough the trial court found that
the CBG wes ,,whitadomiaated,,' 

tbe court
found minoritir hld ample opportunities to
prrticipate ln the CBG. The court below

l. "Thc.ttct-thrt no mcmbcrr o, r minontygroup-htvc bcrn clecrcd ao offie ovcr tn ex-
taodcd pcrbd-of tlm lt probrtivc. Howevar,ln. .lddoo ot r d mhority cudldrtcr dajooloccca[ruy fqtclo$ th. porlbility ot dilu.
uoa. ot tt!! bhcl voac,, ln viohdon ot this
ucuan. .Zmmr {lt!t F.2d .a f3O?. t, ir drd,tn ,oJdbllity.cndr thet thc mqlority citizens
p-q. *& thc c:tlon.c.3., by-mrnipuleting
tD. rtcc0oo ol r ,rrc, mnoaty oirafAui

htkl thtl thcru wcn, no rtructural bsrricrs
to participution arxl lxrinttrl to the suplxrrt
of threc lninority candirlabs by thc'iBG
that w€re electrd to the Abilene City Coun-
cll. Plaintiffs argue that the court below
neglected to disus evidence that presentcd
strucl,ural barriers. Although t^here was ev-
irlence thal. anyonc csn Bttcnd and vote at
CBG'a meetings, and that there ig a nomi-
nating committer which at one time had &
minority menrber, therc wee evidence that
thir nominating commitiee only makes rcc-
ommendarions, which can tx rejected try the
exetutivc committce. In the &natt llclxrrt
regarding the lg82 amendmcnts to the Vot_
ing Rights Act, it was sprcifically notrd
that the mcr€ cloction of a few minority
csndidates was not rufficient !o bar e find-
ing of voting dilution under the regults
test.l

[7] Under the rotality of the circum-
stanceE r.esultJ trst adopted by the Con-grs, the court below failed to mention any
of the evidence pnjs€ntcd try the plaintifls
thst the minority candidatea statui Uy CnG
were not true repns€ntatives of the minori-
ty population in tJre city of Abilene. The
court fuiled to mention mueh of the evi-
dcnce of polarized voling, blocl voting, ef_
fcets of past rlircrimination, and tliscrimine-
tory intent in mainfuining the atJarg€ sys.
tcm. For example, sociologist Dr. Chandler
Davidson testified regarriing strdies he con-
ducud which indieted some 14 instsncer uf
wh^at he considered to be polarized voting in
Abilene area elections from 1956 throigh
1981. R€cord, vol. 6 at 510-BE. Dr. Chan-
dler also rtat€d hil opinion that Abilene,s
adoption in 1962 of the majority-vote re.
qulr€ment was partially motivat€d by I dc..
sire to dilute th€ vot€s of Blacks antl Mexi-
can-Americang. Id. at b9{l-94. plaintiff
Ben Aguirre testified thst he urd hir family

'Wcrc wc to hold ahrt r minorlry cudldrtc,r
rucccas lt thc pdb it ooctualvc prof of I
minority group's rEes to tha politlcrl prGt'k would rurcly bc lnvitlnt ratcmpar ao clr.
cumvcnt ah. Cotsritutlon . . . ltrtad wc thrll
conlinuc to rcquiE rn in&pcodent cmldcrr
aron ol rhe Bord.' IDrd" S.Rep. No. {l?. g?t-b
Con8., 2d S€ss., Epmaod itr lg&! U.S.Cod.
con8. & Ad.Nry. I?2, 2O7.

rrrrrrrr,r r';rrrrrrirrrusthrcst!andrbureadur. pleirtiffrtopro ,tiono(theyolaof
r,,N .'r,,1 .,n(r lris wife, pleintilf Amelh mlmritler undcr ulity ol tlrc circum-
A6rrrrrr, .,,,,gh[ .letion to tho Abilen€ city rt&c.r rclult t, tiaily lry r rhowiog
courrril, ll*rr,l, vol. 6 et 86o4?; plaintilt ol thGir hck of o ttre poriticel pi
Vcluqrrur offered evidene thrt aho en- cesc. tt i! mur .,r to tind r rirgfe
u/untcrc(l lrortilily and uncooperation from effoct thsn to fir .,riminetory pu4ie
thc tirultl, (llcrk's office in Abilene when behind thtt effe,
rhe attcnr|trd tl file es a candidgte for Tte court brl ,rrrctly notrd thatJusrie of rhe peae in 19?6 and fo1.lunty pr_i 

"i-i"t"ni'i. r rcquiml under theClcrk in l9?E. Id. at 3?6-A).. Thir. evi- it"trt .y.i"i, ,t l,laintiffrappellantadence, ctrtainly relevunt rnd sub6t nti8l i" fl"*"r"i it iiif".r ,ut€ thrt it L earierlight of the factors to be conridercd by the ;;;r;'.;i;; rr , rr L ro pmve inr,entcrurt, went without mention by the trid The court below <1,, ,,,rt detaii ita findingrcourt. of voting dilution t, r, r the rtatutory clri*m
The court below did oupport itr conclu- of the ptaintiffs-a, r..llants, but rsrumed

riona, but did not indicetc whether he had thst its tinding! or: ,rrentionrl dixriminr-
coruiderod certein of plaintiffr'evidence or tory purpo.e woulr ,,ffice under tlre Vot-
whether he simply did not conrider it per- ing Rightr AcL Si. , it i! ealier un&r the
ruarive. Without the additional findinge o( Voting Rights Act . l)rove an effect tlran
fect calkxl for on remand, them ie no way En int4Dt, the ourr . low did mt spply the
for this court to tell whether th€ courtt corEt.trrdard ir, rrs r€solution oi the
dct€rminstion thst there is ao effoct ol crre. It ir porsibl, r[at fur0er findingr
dircrimination which would vioLte thc Vot- would mdre a differ. ri,:e in the tirul conclu-
ing Righta Act ir clsarly amoDoou& rionr ol the court 1,. r,,w.

We do not intimatp what the finel r€ult
rhould be, but as for an alleged violation of
the Voting Rightr Act, u rmendod in 1982,
T,6.hould not write until the court below
rhowc that it conridercd rll of the evidence
by dircueing tlre rame in full.

[8] Defendanta ErSue thst t}re new
rmendmeDts to the Voting Rightr Act do
not elimrnrte .n int€nt mquiremeat but
inetcad rmrely eliminrt r noed to find
dinct evidenco ol dircriminetory intznt
Thir ergument ir rbcolutely witlrout merit
The Senafe Report metea clerr the
emendmeatr wols Doant !o rcinrtrte a rE
rult! test 

i

t9] TIle fEctors hid out in the Senate
Report for chowing e violation of the re-
rulb tert are euentidly tho rern lrcton ar
in Zimmq. Further, ar in cerc under the
Fourtcenth and Fiftcenth Anrendrmnta, e
trid judgr is to mske hb ultinrrle nrling
elter eramination of tJre "totelity ol cir"
cumstanccs." While the rsolutioa ol rach
individual i4immer lactot mfu{rt aot bc tif-
fercnt unrler conrtitulionel rnd ttat[tory
votrng diluturn cleima, it ir nuch crder for

VDLA8QUE,Z v. CtTy Of ABI|.ENE.
CLrttlrL tat, (ttaa,

lu23

[10] Defen&nu , rxs appeal on thc
feilure to n@eive ,,il,,rneyE' feca ir com-
pletely without mtrrr The repted nrle
which allowr attorn,.r: feer to be rwrrded
to prcvailing defen,trurrs wherc plaintilfr,
cuit ir frivolons, ( hnstiansburg C.nrcaa
Anpny v. E,EO.(' , {34 U.S. ll2, ,t21, 9E
s.cr 69r, 700, 5{ L Ud.2d 6,18 (ry7E), L r
pmper rule. The &ferrdants'propored rule,
which would grsnt artorneys fea if the
defendant prevai\ would havo a chilling
effect on ruits to re lross constitutional vio-
lationr tlret would tE rtisrtnrus. Thc fril-
urc of the court to gm0t deferxlEnts rttor-
nep feea we! con€ct rnd is affirmed.

AFFIRUED IN PAItT and REMA].|DED
FOR FURTHER T'INDINGS OF FACT
AND @NCLUSIONS OF LAW IN AG
CORDANCE WITH ,I'IIIS 

OPINION.

PATRICK E Ht(, ,iNBOTHAU, Circuit
Judge, concuring:

I write rperltll rr to luggErt iny
in@u.cy in the r ,1ry odnlon but to
rdd r prnatlretical ..r ht not eentirl to
ill bdding. In can. ,ve sre yet to give
th€ diltrict ourts s, .rtc guidrnce in the



tv26tou 725 FEDERAL REPORTER. 2d SEITIES I{OBRIS v. LTv CO[P.
Ct rrllrL loa (lL)

epplication ol the amended Voting Righla
Act, lor we heve not yet fully defined "dis-
crimination" a! th. t2rm ir ueed in voting
rightr carea. For example, the tension be-

twscn rn impaot brrod t+rt of lawfulncu
rnd r rsJltior ol r ri3ht to pmponlond
rcFeraatetba &l1r crey rqolution. Con-

rtitutional limitationa on the congressional

enforcement power Ere in turn left ambigu-
our by thir blurring of the definitional con-

tent ol prohibited "discrimination." It is

then lomewhst unseemly to remend in the
mme of "error" for more detailed factual
determinations. \lfithout a measure of rcl-
evance, the resolution of factual disputes
suffera tlre weaknera of being largely air-
borne.

Furthermore, I fear the idea that each
genre of cases cerries its own Rule 52-rcot-
ed requircment of epecificity. Particularly,
I feer that this idea may take hold and
grow as an independent appellate principle.
Deapite t}ere @ncernE, I Egree that this

care chould be remanded, becauae our ef-
fortr to develop the meaning and constitu-
tional limits of the Voting BightE Act with
iu l9E2 cmendment will be here aided by

the gr€ater detail. In oum, this remand is

impelled more by our own rtruggle than by
any "crror" of the dirtrict court a! thst
word ir urually ured.

Wlnrton S. MORBI$ Erccutor of the
Eet te of Robcrt Trylor Morri+

Ihccrre4 Phintiff-Appcllrnt
v.

Tbo LTV COBPOBATION,
Dcfendut-Appcllea

No 82-l7l!.
Unitad Statca Court of Appealr,

Fifth Circuil

Itrrrch 2, r98{.

Suit wua brought !o necover a rtal ev
t tc commi.ion on tlre rgle of r hotel locat

ed in Acapulco, Mexrco. The Unitr:d Statts
District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, RoLrert W. Porter, J., entered judg-
ment in favor of vendor, and bmker'r cslale

rplrulel. Ths (l.,urt of Apporh, Grrzr,
Clnult Judgu, hsld thatr (1) under Texu
law, lettrr/memorandum sent by rtal estate
broker to vendor's employe"e in which bnt-

ker rcquested an exl,ension of his authority
to sell hotel coupled with bmker's parol

testimony was not sufficient to crcat! s

contract outside statuta of frauds ptovision

of Texas fa€al t]state License Act; (2) re-

gardless of whcther a scttlement offcr on-
stitutc(l l)in(ling almision undcr subsutn-
tivc Mcxican law, ventlor's settlement offcr
to broker wu inarlmisiblc; and (3) regul-
less of charactrrization of p:utics' agrec-
ment under I\lexicsn law, broker was not

entitled to a real 6tJrt€ c0mmigsion since he

wa.s not the procuring cause of the aale.

Affirmed.

l. Federal Court c-409

When, in a conflicts case, a question

sriscs u to which subctantive 8tlrte law
ghoukl be applicd, a federal court must Elr
ply the urnflictrf-laws rule of the Etst€ in

which it is eitting.

2, Action c-17
Oeneral conflict-of-laws rule in Texas

is that queutions of subutlntive law ure

controlled by thc lawt of the stnt€ wherc
the csuse of action arose, but msttcN of
rrmedy and of pn*alurt arc governed b1'

the laws of the Btste where the action is

Eought t0 lrc maintained.

3. Fedenl Courb e{10
Texas courts charsct€riz8tion of suit'

utc of fnruds lrovision of Texu lbal Es-

tatr Licn* Act as pnxrdural for ctnflicta'
of-law purposes waa conclusive on fcderal

cour[ thut, tho slututc wut applicable in

suit to rccover rcal eatate commision on

thc ule of a hotcl in Moxiqr. Vcrnon'r
Ann.Texss Civ.St. arl 65738, S 2qb).

{. Erolen el3(2)
Under Texar lrw, lettar/mmonndum

rent by real eetste broler to vendor'r em-
ployee in which broker rcquertad rn erten-
rion ol hir authority to rll Moricru holel
couplod $itb bmlcr'r prml trtimony war
not lufficient to creEto e contrrct outside
statu!6 of lnuda provision of Texrr Rcal

Estate Lic€ns€ Act. Vermn'r Ann.Texar
Civ.Sl aa 6573s, I qb).

6, E toppel 6E6
Vendor wra not prcmissorily eatopped

lmm asaerting ltstute of fraudr provirion
of Texss R€sl Estats License Act in auit
brought to recover commission on the sale

of a hotcl in Merico. Vernon'r AonTerar
Civ.SL art. 6578s, 0 2qb).

6. Fcdcrrl Court .4901 I

Although ell of one letter end part of
Enother letler, which were both writtcn by
officiala of aubeidiary, rhould have been ad-
mitted in suit to rccover a real eatrte @m-
miscion on g Mexican hotel rold to psrent
corporation, exclugion of the letters w8s
harmless error since they failod to elt8blith
u direct relationship between brcker'r ef-
fort! in ontrcting subeidiary and purchare
by parent mrporation.

?. Cvirhnce e2l3(3) i

Htgar,lless of whcther 8 !€ttlemcnt of-
fcr corrstirutetl binding admiuion under
ruL:tdrrlirr ltleriun law, veldor'r rettle
rr,rrt (,fl\r to Lro[cr was inadmirsible to

r . .rl rstak commisrion on icle ol
,, r. .( I 1.. ,,r.,t rrr llexico, FedBuler Evid
l!r,1, lr,.'. .jli Ll.S.C.A.

b. llruhcrr e53
lk.giutllcss of characterization of par-

tits' rgrt:e rlcnt utrder Mericu hw, brcker
ws rrot errt.ithd lu E rcal eltsto commision
following rale of c Mexicea hotel rince he

was not the prxuring crure ol the rale.

0. Broken.-6t
Real ertate broker, who wr. not PrrD

curing caure ol rale ol Mexicrn hottl to
porcnt corporation and vho hd ofleled the
prolrerty to parent'r rubridiary, wta not en-
titled to c.mperuEtion unde! f,ericen hw

principle ol the ge , ,n de negocic or un&r
thory ol anriquer .,,.rcnto ilegititm.

Wrller, Charfi,r,t & Dorn, Timothy L
Bougrsn, Matth. .' Jay Lrnc, CIEinn 4
Ohio, for plaintiff ,,1,1ellanL

Rein, Harell, l rrcry, Young & DoLC
Morrir Herrcll, &,ir,rt W. Jordrn, Dellq
Ter, for defendant 

"p1nllee.
Appeel from th. Llnited St8t4. Ditt ict

Coun for ttre Northcrn Dirtrict ol Tere

8eforc CLARK, Chief Judgc, GABZA
md JOLLY, Circuit Judgee

GARZA, Circuit Judge.

l.

T'ACTS

Robert Tr;,lor M,,rris, pleintiff/appellen(
wg r real estst! i.ruker in f,exico. On
Februa4r 28, lfrl?, r,, received I lettcr ftom
LTV ruthorizing ,,,r, on t nonerclurive
basir, to obtain I ur fo, the HYitt Ra.
gency Hotel in ,,ulco, Merico. LTV
owned the Hyatt . . .rpl)ellEnt clEirM LTV
hed been trying, ,,ut su@e!s, to rell it
during the ten yt rior to 197I. Morir'
authorization expr ,n April tl0, 1971. On
llay 16, 197I, Mt, ,rotified LTV thrt he

had e bonafide L On l[ay 19, 1971,

LTV rent Morris , r,:t!en. Tlroe letten
autlorized Morri, a nonexclurive buir,
to offer the hot. ,1.5 million U.S. ann
rency. One lett "rl that Morrir' ru-
thorizrtion tl t,

June 80, lfl?, ,

.e hotel erpired on

.rt Monir would be

paid r commiesi five percent ol th€
rtatcd purthase 1 t the rale cloeed dur-
ing the rteted a,. ,zation period (wNch
could be ertendtr writinS). Morrir wu
not requltd to c, ,'t or to prrticifste in
negotirtiona, Th rgreem€ntt were lc'
cepted by the plu ,,rf in writing end ru
turned to LTV. l, ,. lctkr d8trrl MEy 30,

1971, Morrir fornr, ,ry offcrcd the prcpcrty

to Dr. Velsco lnrl tirncl Serfin, tlre group
hc rcprentcd.

On July 15, 19, , Morrir grve written
notice to LTV'r cl,..,rrnan, Peul Thayer, rc-



!
/t

Ii

-. -i ") 1r.;'u', 
-;-'l cui 4 -' '^'>t/ -t'-."v\!'t) :" t)O t*'t'Lv)-!

(1',^/wHur) -^Ingl\/'hbrfl lO) 0

fi)a > V-e) trc1 /<-a -ecL -'--l'qu {, q n d-Tn
-tt''f,

l,tq'l*trJ*