Alonzo v. Jones Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

    It .r
.:.. \,t

rll (

+h4.,. ..'-\-1 t,..\ 4.-
IN THE UNITE/ STATES DISTRICT

FOR THE SOUITIEiN DISTRICT OF

LERK, U. S. DISTRICI'COUNT
SOUT.HERT.I DISTNICT Or. TEXAS

COURT

TEXAS

EILED
FEB 3 1983

CORPUS CHRISTT DIVISTON LIESE E
EU DEEIIYJ

ABEL ALONZO, ET AL.,

Plainti ffs,

vs.

LUTHER JONES, ET AL.,

Defendants -

clvrL AcTIOrr NO. C-At-227

PINDINGS OF TACT AND CONCLUSIOT.IS OF I.AW

This case tvas tried before the Court on November 29

through December 2, L982. pursuant to Rule 52(a), Fed. R. Civ. p-

the Court now makes its findings of fact and conclusions of Law.

. Findings of Fact

1. The city of corpus christi, Texas tnas originally
incorporated in 1845 by an Act of the Texas Legislature. At that
earry date, the city was to be governed by a mayor and six
alderrnen who vrere to run at large. Gameil s Laws of Texas,
General and Special Laws and constitutions, Ig3g-rg46, vor. z,
pp. I436-1437 (First Legistature, 1g4E).

2. A reincorporation occurred in 1852, Bt rvhich time
the city government was to consist of a mayor, seven aldermen, a

marshal, a treasurer, and a secretary.' The previously existing
term and method of election rt/ere not changed. Gamel,s Laws.of
Texas, General and speciar Larvs and constitutions, rg47_r854,
voI - 3 , pp. L222-L224 (Fourth Legislature, special Lar*rs, lg szl .

s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s

(



3. The city was once again reincorporated in rbz:, at
which time provision was made for government by a mayor and nine
aldermen, to be elected from each of three wards within the City.
Gamel's Laws of Texas, General, Special and Constitutions, IBTI-
1873, vol. 7, pp. 1193-1250 (Thirteenth Legislature, speciar
Laws, 1873). The reincorporation hras repealed only two years

later. Gamelrs Laws of Texas, General, Special and Constitutions,
L873-79, vol. 8, p. 725 (Fourteenth Legislature, second session,
Special. Laws, 1875).

' 4- on April 6,1876, the city council of the city of
corpus christi adopted a generar state charter pursuant to
authority granted by the Legislature of the State of Texas. The

charter provided for government by a mayor and four aldermen to
be elected from two wards within the city. 'Charter of the City
of Corpus Christi, April 6, 1976.

5. rn 1909, the city of corpus christi was granted
stilr another charter; Laws of Texas, Generar, special and

Constitutions, 1909, Vol. 14, pp. 304-351 (Thirty-First Legis-
lature, 1909). Article VrI of this newly enacted charter provided
for a city council consisting of-a mayor and four commissioners. -
commissioners !.rere to be erected ,,by a vote of the peopre at
large' and iL was specifically directed that ,no person sha1l be
eligible to office who sha1l have been nominated in any primary
election in a ward or precinct of the cityr or in any manner
which will prevent the voters at large in said city from
exercising the privilege of voting for or against said candidate..
Id., Article VII, Section 2, p. 32g.

-2-



6. In 1945, Corpus Christi became a home rule dity
pursuant to the provisions of Articles 1155, €t seq., Texas

Revised Civil Statutes.

7. fn 1955, by charter amendment, provision was made

for two additional commissionersr so that commencing in April of

Lg57 and thereafter, the city council would be composed of a

mayor and six commissioners.

8. Until 1970, the mayor and. councilmen of the City of
corpus christi r.rere elected by a plurality vote, with no runoff,
and without any provision prohibiting single-shot voting. rn

that year, the city charter was amended to provide for runoff
elections so that the mayor and each councilman would be elected
by majority vote. This charter amendment was prompted by the
provisions of what is now Article 7.L6 of the Texas Election
Code. The requirement had its origin in a 1941 statute reguiring
such elections in cities and towns having a population in excess

of 20o1000. The law did not appry to cities whose charters
provided for the selection of officers by means of a preferential
type of balIot, provided that the city did not use voting
machines as the legal methoil of voting. rn 1970, the-population
of Corpus Christi exceeded 2OOr0OO for the first time and Corpus.

Christi utilized voting machines in the conduct of City elections.
9- In 1970, the City Council of Corpus Christi appointed

a charter Revision committee to make suggested changes in the
City Charter additional to those required by Article 7.1G. rfre
Committee consisted of both Anglo and Mexican-American residents
of the community. rn addition to formulation of ranguage

-3-



r"grrr.airrg the conduct of runoff elections, the committeelalso

recommended that four of the Cityrs six councilmen be required to
reside in geographic "councilmanic" districts, but to be elected
at-rarge. The remaining two councilmen were to run at-rarge.
The Committee recontmended that a place system be implemented.

This plan ProPosed by the Committee was'basically the same plan
endorsed by Tony Bonilla, a member of the Committee and a promi-
nent Mexican-American political leader. Acting pursuant to the
existing charter requirement, the proposed revision hras submitted
to a referendum vote by the residents of the City, who authorized
its adoption. The referendum was supported by 59t of the voters,
including 54t of the voters in those precincts having a majority
of Mexican-American voters- Thus since 1971, the City Council of
corpus christi is composed of a mayor -and six councilmen who

serve for a term of two years. The mayor and all councilmen are
erected at-large, but councirmen for places 1 through 4 must
reside in the councilmanic districts corresponding to those place
numbers.

10- Since L952 the qualifications for a candidate for
mayor or councilman have been that the candidate be a qualified
voter, that he file an application to have his narne placed on the
ballot, that the application be in writirg, that it be signed by
the candidate and at reast 5oo qualified voters, and that it be
filed at least thirty days before the date of the election. No

filing fee has ever been required. The requirement of 5oo narnes

is no longer enforced in recogniti-on of Articre 13.53, Texas
Election Code.

-4-



11. No Mexican-Anerican sat on the city council, this

century until 1955. In 1961, two Mexican-Americans lrere seated',

a pattern followed throughout the decade except in 1965. In

1971, L973, and L977, three Mexican-Americans were elected. fn

L979, however, only one Mexican-American was elected and in 1981

none were elected. Because the successful Mexican-American

candidates urere often incumbents, only nine separate Mexican-

American individuals have been elected to the council in this

century. Only one actually resided in the so-called, "Westside"
(see No. 17). A Mexican-American has never been elected mayor,

although Gabe Lozano, SE. held that position by appointment in
1978.

L2. On the occasion of two vacancies, one in 1978 and

the other in 1981, Mexican-Americans $rere appointed to the City
Council to take the pLace of a Mexican-American councilmen who

had vacated his position. one of these appointees, Juarez, also

lived in the Westside; He was appointed in 1978 but was defeated

in the election of L979

13. A Black American has been'elected-to the City
Council at each election from 197I to the present.

14. The boundary lines of the City of Corpus Christi
encompass an area of L16.5 square miles.

15. In 1970, the population of Corpus Christi was

204,525, of which 1081707 or 53.It were Anglo, B2rggg or 40.6t
were llexican-American, and L0,526 or 5.lg were Black

15' By 1980, the population of the city had increased

to 231,999. Anglo population was 109,996 or 47.4r, Mexican-

-5-



American population was 10Brl75 or 4G.6*, and Black populdtion
hras 11,889 or 5.19. The total population change in corpus
Christi, Nueces County, Texas from 1970 to 1981 was Zgr25O persons

of which 261275 or 89.83t h/ere Mexican-American, and 1,369 or
4-68t were Black. while Mexican-Americans norr, comprise 46.Gt of
the population of the City of Corpus Christi, they comprise only
418 of the city's voting age population, and 3gt of the cityrs
total registered voters. Blacks account for approximately 5t of
the city's voting age population and Anglos make up the remaining
57t of the voting age PoPulation. Anglos and Blacks thus constiJ
tute 62* of the cityrs registered voters. rn 1970, Mexican-
Americans comprised approximately 31t of the registered voters.
rn 1972, the figure was 31.69t; in L974, 33.rt; in Lg76, 31.gt;
and in L979, 35.88.

17. ?he predominantly Mexican-American section of
Corpus Christi is commonly referred to as the "Westside,,. The
census tracts located in this area are zr. 6, gr.9, 10, 1l , L2,
13, I5r 16, L7r 18, 19 and 20. All except number z are contiguous.
According to the 19go census, the totar population of these 14

census tracts is 91,129 or 39.29* of the total popuration of
corpus christi- The Mexican-American popuration of these 14

census tracts is 70,637 or 77.51t of the popuration of that area
and 65-27t of alr the Prexican-American popuration of corpus
christi. The remaining 35t of the Mexican-American population
is scattered throughout some 20 other census tracts. of the.34
census tracts in Corpus Christi, 30 contain at 1east 5OO Mexican_
A'rericans. From 1970 to 1980, the percentage of lrlexican-Americans

-6-



I
has increased in 31 of 34 census tracts.

18. Historically, Mexican-Americans have been the
subject of discrimination throughout the State of Texas and,

including the City of Corpus christi. This discrimination was :

pervasive, involving employment, housing, public accommodatj.ons,

education, and political access. No useful purpose would be

served by attempting to detail this finding. rt is not disputed
by the Defendants and the discriminatory history has already been
documented in earlier litigation. see Graves v. Barnes, 37g F.
Supp. 640, 658 (W.D. Tex. L9741 ; Cisneros v. Corpus Christi
Independent School District, 324 F. Supp. 599 (S.D. Tex. L970).
of course, the most blatant forms of discrimination have since
disappeared, such as the po1I tax, segregated schools, restrictive
covenants, segregated public acconrmodations, etc. Vestiges do
remain' Thus the average family income and the educational 1evel
of the ltexican-American population of corpus christi is signifi-
cantly lower than that of the Anglo population. For example,
of those corpus christi residents at least 2s years o1d who have
completed at least four years of college, gr.9t are Angro.and
only L4'2t are Mexican-American. Mexiban-Americans comprise on11z=..-

33-8t of the high school graduates as contrasted with 60.Gt
Anglos. The mean family income in corpus christi is $22rgr0.00
but it is only sIG,954.00 for ltexican-American famiries. of
those corpus christi f.amiries with annuar incomes below $5,000.00,
65t are llexican-Americans while only 23.3t are Anglos. conversery,
of those families rvhose annual incomes exceed $5OrOO0.O0, only
10 - 6 t are Mexican-American whi Ie g6 . 4 t are Angros. t^Ihether

-7-



because of federal legislation or national political trends or
othervise, past discrimination has not prevented llexican-Americans
from registering to vote in roughly the same percentage as have

Anglos. vghile they remain a minority of the voting age popula-
tion, their numbers have grown significantry in the past ten
years and as noted above, they now reside in significant numbers

in all areas of the City.
19. l'luch trial attention was directed to the issue

of polarized voting in the city of Corpus Christi- Both parties
primarily focused their attention on elections after 1970, when

the. present electoral scheme was adopted. The evidence clearly
presents a pattern of polarized voting as between the Westside
and the other areas of the city, sometimes generally described by
the witnesses as the "Southside". Dr. Louis irtiller and Dr. Fred
cervantes, both testifying as praintiffsr experts, found a high
degree of statistical correlation indicating ethnicarly polarized
voting. rndeed, Cervantes labeled the correlation 'startling,.
Even defense witnesses agreed that corpus christi was a polarized
community. Roger Bateman, for example, stated that there was

ethnic division'in the community but that it was ,unnecessary,,.

Mike Kendrick, Jr- added that the',faurt ries in both camps,,.
Hayden Head, sr- believed that the Mexican-American 1eadership
bore the responsibility for the problem

zo- The effects of this polarization are not so
readily apparent at first glance, however, because of the prbsence
of srating in several key elections during the 1970, s. Because
of this factor, the polarization between lniestside and southside

-8-



has not necessarily been based on the ethnicity of the cafidiaate
but rather on whether the candidate has been perceived as being
rePresentative of Westside or Southside interests. For example,
in 1971, the voters were offered a choice of three di.fferent
slates, the Now party, the citizens party, and the peoples party.
only four independents ran for the seven positions on the ballot.
The two strongest slatesr ds confirmed by the election returns,
$rere the Now party and the peoples party. The peoples party was
strongly favored by the voters in the westside although it
featured only two Mexican-American candidates, canales and Reyna.
conversely, the Now party, heavily supported in the southside,
of fered three Mexican-American candidates, Bosquez , Lozano 

"rr,dGonzalez- Neither party offered a Mexican-American candidate for
mayor. rnstead, the third party, the citizens party, featured.
Abel chapa as a candidate for mayor. Nevertheless, in the general
election, Chapa was overwhelmingly defeated by the voters in the
predominantly Mexican-American.precincts, usualry running third
behind sizemore and lrlcDonaldT the mayoral candidates of the other
two slates- voting vras essentially polarized on a slate basis.
Thus, I^Iestside voters heavily supported Anglos crower and Bennight,
running on the Peoples Party, against Now cand,idates Bosquez and
Lozano- voters in predominantry Anglo precincts did just the
opposite- The Now party candidates bron all seats except for
Prace 5, which was won by Peoples Party candidate Branch. Branch,
a Black, won heavily on the westside but also ran ahead of the
ticket in other precincts to defeat Anglo Ben tlarks. rt is
noteworthy that the Bonirla family, considered prominent leaders

-9-



in the Westside community and firmly allied with the Plaihtiffs

in this case, supported the NOW Party candidates in 1971. J. A.

("Tony") Cana1es, another Westside lead,er who ultimately ran on

the Peoples Party slate, was initially approached by mayoral

candidate Ronny Sizemore to run on the NOW Party slate. Canales

declined because the NOW Party slate did not have a Black candi-

date and because Canales did not consider Bosquez and Lozano to
be adequate representatives of the Mexican-American community.

canales did not want to be part of a srate if he was given no

voice in its composition

2L- The L977 City election again featured a contest

between two srates, the "unified corpus christi party" and the

"seven for corpus christi Party". Additionally a host of inde-
pendent candidates filed for almost every pIace, including the

mayor's seat- The "Unified" party featured two ltexican-American

candidatesr' Ruben Bonilla and Rudy Garza, and -drew overwhelming

support on the Westside. This slate featured an Anglo, David L.

Perryr &s its mayorar candidate. The "seven" party featured
three }lexican-American candidates, Gabe Lozano, sr., Eduardo

De Ases and David Diaz.- Lozano and De- Ases were incumbents.

Although Westside voters strongly preferred the "Unified,, slate, --

De Ases running on the "Seven" slate drew enough Westside support
to win without a runoff. The 'seven" slate vron most of the
races, but independent Jason Luby was reelected mayor with over-
whelming westside support and "unified" candidate Gi1r, the
winner in P1ace 2, hron every Westside box.

E.

- 10-



22. In the LgTg election, only one slate was otfered
to the voters with a host of independent candidates running for
all positions. The slate, called the "unite corpus christi
Party", was headed by mayoral candidate Luther G. Jones, JE. The'

slate featured Mexican-American candidates for three of the six
council seats, with a Black candidate for the fourth seat. Diaz

won in P1ace 1 but the other two Mexican-American slate candidates,
incLuding appointed incumbent Juarez, were defeated by Anglo
independents.

23. rn the 1981 election, only one slate developed.
This was called the "Taxpayers' Party" and featured two Mexican-
Anerican candidates. " Apparently, this slate was not endorsed by

politically influential citizens on either the Westside or the
southside, which'is confirmed by the fact that only one of its
cand.idates made the runoff and none was elected to office.
rnstead, the 1981 .election 

hras a battle of independents. Mexican-
Anerican candidates filed only for place 1; place 6 and, for
mayor- The two Mexican:-American mayoral,candidates received
negligible support -even-in predominantly Mexican-American pre-..
cincts- On- the- other hand, councilmanic candidates Luna and

cavazos ran strong races and made the runoffs against Anglo
opponents. Luna was running as an incumbent, having been appointed
to the council a few months earlier to fill a vacancy created by
the resignation of David Diaz. Luna and cavazos both lost, with
the cit)ruride voting crearly following ethnic lines. The result
was that there is no Mexican-American on the present city Counci1.
Parenthetically, cavazos ran for state Representative later in

-11-



1981 and was elected from a single-member district. It isl also

noteworthy that Luna, running in one of the geographic districts,

hron handily in those precincts comprising the district itself yet

lost in the overall citywide vote.

24. Mexican-Americans were clearly involved to varying

degrees in the slating process during the 1970rs. Recognized

Mexican-American leaders helped form the unsuccessful slates in

L97I and L977. At least in 1971, there was some effort by

mayoral candidate Sizemore to form an altiance with the Mexican-

American leadership. At noted in No. 20 above, Sizemore tried to
persuade Canales to join the ticket and was successful in obtain-
ing the support of the. Bonillas. The 1971 campaign became very

bitter, however, and featured open appeals to ethnic voting,
couched in terms of the then highly controversial school busing

litigat,ion. See No. 28. Slatemakers continued to select
Mexican-American candidates thereafter, but there was little -

evidence that the Mexican-American community had any voice in the
composition of any of the later slates endorsed by Southside

leaders.

25. A candidate can and has won a-cit1+ride election
without winning any westside boxes- but no Mexican-American

candidate could win a citywide election without strong Southside
support. Indeed, at least since 1951, only one Mexican-American

has ever won election without running on a slate endorsed by the
Angro community. rn 1925, Gabe Lozano, sr., running as an

independent, won in a runoff. At that time, he was an incumbent,
having successfully run on the Now slate in 1971 and 1923- He

-12-



ran again on a slate in L977. No evidence was offered as to why

he ran as an independent in 1975. In any event, his slate

opponent that year $ras a Mexican-American, Rogerio Lopez. The

importance of slating to the success of a Mexican-American

candidate, at least prior to L979, is evidenced by the career of

Ricardo Gonzalez. In Lg73, GonzaLez ran for Place 5 as a member

of the NOW Party. He r+as opposed by three independents, all
Anglo males. That year, in those precincts where the voting
population was less than 50t l'lexican-American, Gonzalez hron 61t

of the vote while his three Anglo opponents combined won only
39t. T\^ro years later, for some reason not discLosed by the

evidence, Gonzalez ran as an independent. This time he filed for
Place 5. His opponent was Edward L. sample, a Black, running on

the United Citizens Progressive Party s1ate. Again, looking only
at, Anglo-dominated precincts, the returns disclose that Gonzalez

suffered a dramatic reversal of popularity- rn the 1975 runoff,
he could muster only 368 of the vote while slate candidate Sample

amassed 54*. rn L979, slating- apparently began rosing its
political impact. - The only slate offered that year $ras headed by

Luther G. Jones, Jr., -whose 1975 slate had been somewhat ineffective,
losing four of seven places. In L979, Jonesr slate fared slightly
better, winning four of seven including Jonesr mayoral seat. rt
is noteworthy that two of the three losing slate candidates were

Mexican-Americans.' Without any viable slate in 1981, in a choice
between two Anglo candidates and two Mexican-American candidates,
the l^lestside voters overwhelmingly supported the Mexican-Ameriean

candidates while the other precincts overwhelmingly supported the

-13 -



Anglo candidates. ,

26. while the Westside voters cannot elect a candidate

to a citlnride office, they cannot be totally ignored in city
poritics. Their voting strength has undoubtedly made it
politically wise to place Mexican-American candidates on any

viable slate. lloreoverr orl a few occasions--most notably I9Z5--
Westside support has been instrumental in electing Ang1o inde-
pendents who have drawn enough southside votes to win. No

Mexican-American independent could reasonably expect to do the
same. fndeed, Tony Canales expressed the opinion that in recent
years, westside readers have "tended to give up" on city races,
preferring to concentrate on county, state, and federal politics
where their efforts would more likely bear fruit.

27. rt is obviously easier to conduct a citlnuide
electoral campaign as a member of a slate. Not only is it easier
to raise funds on a slate basis, but it is also easier to campaign.

because different members of the slate can appear at different
functions in different areas at the same time. In the two main

slate-versus-srate showdowns, namery 1971 and 1977, the srates
more identif ied r^rith the Anglo business conrmunity- were able to
raise substantially more campaign funds than the competing
sIate. However, the amount of campaign contributions has not
necessarily correlated with success. For exampre, in 1g75, the
Luther Jones slate reported approximately $41,000.00 in campaign
contributions and yet lost four out of seven seats to independents.
That year, the successful independent candidate for rnayor, Jason
Luby, reported campaign contributions of onry $3,G55.00.

-14-



Successful independent candidate Gabe Lozano, Sr. reported

contributions of $4, 150. OO. Successful independent candidate

Ruth Gi11 reported contributions of $10r759.00 and unsuccessful

mayoral candidate Harold Branch received contributions of

S10,040.00. In L979, unsuccessful independent mayoral candidate

Bob Gully reported contributions of $34r677.00, almost as much as

the total contributions reported by the United Corpus Christi

Party. In 1981, while the evidence of campaign contributions of

all of the candidates is inexplicably sketchy, it appears that

independent Jandidate Herbert Hawkins, the only B1ack, won his

citlmide election on a campaign bud,get of $3,542.00. Obviously,

the cost of a citlnride campaign is normally more expensive than

would be the cost of running in a single-member district, at

least for an independent. It is also probably true that if

councilmanic districts were smaller in size, nrore candidates

would be tempted to run for office.

28. The only evidence of an open ethnic appeal during

a City campaign in recent history involved the 1971.election. ,

The appeals were made by various boosters of the I{OW Party and

$rere directed against:.the Peoples Party;--the appeals were couched

in terms of opposition to the Steelworkers' Union and "the causes

they support". Other campaign propaganda that year vras more

explicit, reminding the voters that the union had "sponsored the

school busing case". See Cisneros v. Corpus Christi IndependenL

Schoo1 District, supra. There is also evidence of blatant ethnic
appeals in school erections in 1950 and 1962. see Graves v.
Barnes,378 F. Supp. at 659; L.U.L.A.C. v. WiIliams, C. A. 74-C-95

- I5-



(S.O. Tex. 1979) . There is no evidence of any similar calnpaign

tactics since 197I, except that Bob Gulley asserted that reverse

discrimination appeals vrere made against him in the 1977 campaign.

29. During the period from 1971 through 1981 , 25.'7t

(I98 of 77Ll election judges h'ere Mexican-American; 189 of 765

(24.7\) were alternate judges.

30. During the period from 197I through 1981, City
Council appointments of Mexican-Americans to boards and

commissions ranged from 28t to 43t of the overall total. The

average $ras 34.42. .Curiously, the highest percentage was in L979

and the Iowest in 1981.

31. In L977, the Cityrs personnel were 60.1t }lexican-

American, 5.72 Black, and 34.2* Anglo. By 1980, Mexican-American

employment had increased to 60.6t, B1ack employment to 9.08, and

Anglo employment had declined to 30.3t.

32. rn the highest grade of employment, lever 26 and

above, for the period L977 through 1980, the number of Anglos

increased one from L42 to 143 but decreased in percentage from

84t to 78t. The number of Mexican-Americans increased twelve,
from 26 to 38 (15t to 2It), and the number of Blacks increased
from one to two

33- Prom L977 through 1980, the city's emproyment in
the second highest grade, grades 23-25, showed a decline in Anglo
employment from lo2 to 97 (67t to 5Bt), but an increase in
Mexican-American employment from 47 to 64 (31t to 39t) and in
B1ack employment from 3 to 5.

- I6-



I

34. Prom L977 through 1980, the Cityts employnlent in
grades 18 through 22 showed a decline in Anglo employment from

144 to 117 (551 to 45t), with a corresponding increase in l,texican-

Anrericans from 108 to L27 (41t to 49t), and in B1acks from L2 to
15.

35:, From L977 to 1980, Mexican-American emproyment on

the police force increased from 109 to L27 (from 33.98 to 3B.Gt)

while Anglo employment decreased from 2OL (62.5*l to 189 (57.5t).
During this same period, the employment of tlexican-Americans by

the fire department increased from 141 to 157 (from 46-4t to
50.58) while Anglo employment decreased from 157 to 145 (from

51.58 to 46.68) .

36- rn 1980, a complaint of discrimination to the
office of Revenue sharing led to an investigation of hiring
practices in the City of Corpus Christi. The report concluded,
among other things, that while females were underrepresented in
the City's work force, the overall city employment of Blacks and

Hispanics hras refrective of their available labor force. The

report further concruded that.whi-le the city had recruited a

substantiar number of- minority applicants for upper-level
positions, Hispanics were "clearly underrepresented,' in adminis-
trative positions and that from 1979 to l9go, the city had made

"little progress" in emproying Hispanic applicants to the few
administrative vacancies that did exist. rn regards to pro-
fessional positions, the report concluded that the city was.

striving toward increasing its minority representation. The

report further found that Hispanics were substantially represented

-L7 -



in technical, clerical and service maintenance positions hnd were

sufficiently rePresented at all 1eveIs within the police depart-
ment. In sum, with respect to all positions "below the adminis-
trative and professional leve1s", the report concruded that
Hispanics were employed in proportion to their labor force
representation.

37. rn the opinion of incumbent councilman Herbert L.
Hawkins, Jt., a Black, the present city councir is responsive to
the entire community and. d.oes not'discriminate against either
l4exican-Americans or Blacks. However, Hawkins believes that
certain long-time city staff members stil1 cling to old attitudes,
and this caused him to urge the city to adopt an affirmative
action prograrn for recruiting more minorities to its payroll.
The council is apparently working on such a p1an.

38- The evidence shows that the City of Corpus Christi
has provided suitable services to the westside arear-such as

se!.rer, $rater, sanitation, police and fire protection. what
little evidence was presented on the subject indicated that the
westside does have a fair share of fire stations-, health care -

facilities, public buirdings; paving prograrns,. and public transit
facilities. The l,Iestside area is, however, the older part of the
City.

39. A polr conducted in 19go under the auspices of
corpus christi state university indicated that 75.6$ of the
Mexican-Americans surveyed thought corpus christi was becoming a
better prace in which to live. The percentage of Mexican-
Americans believing that city services are satisfactory was

- I3-



approximately the salne as that of Anglos. Two of the *oJt
significant percentage differentials were in the response to the
proposition that the City should acquire more land for parks and

playgrounds and that the City does not have enough public recre-
ational opportunities. I'lexican-Americans agreed with both
propositions by 77* and 64*, respectivery, while only 5oB of
Anglos agreed with each proposition. Other evidence suggested

that this is one area in which the city has not been fully
responsive to the needs of the Westside residents, concentrating
instead on waterfront areas and water-oriented recreation not as

widely appealing to Westside residents.
40. There was evidence of some lack of responsiveness

by the city council in more subtre ways. For example, the
evidence indicated that the city council at one point granted a

ten-year lease of a city auditorium to Las Donas de ra corte,
which is apparently a predominantly Anglo social organization,
but denied a similar request by the League of united Latin
American Citizens (LULAC). On another occasion, the city council
approved a contribution to the Arts Council while refusing. to
support the hosting of a segment of ',siempre-en--oomingo,,-, an

extremely popular television program originating in Mexico and
popular throughout the southwest. on another occasion, the city
council supported efforts by the Junior League to improve a park
on the Southside but refused to agree to a LUr,Ac proposition to
refurbish a park on the Westside

4I- The historical background leading to the adoption
of the present electoral system cloes not support a finding that

-19-



the system was developed for the PurPose of discriminatin{

against Mexican-Americans. The initial change to an at-Iarge

system resulted from an act passed in 1909 by the State Legis-

lature. No one suggests that this was done to deprive Mexican-

Americans of access to the political system. fnstead, it seems

to have resulted from a national trend developed in response to

perceived graft and corruption nurtured by the so-ca}led ward

system. Even today, debate continues over the merits of an at-

large system versus single-member districts, with experts dis-

agreeing over-which system best selrres- the general'good of a

community. Likewise, the requirement of a majority vote and

runoff cannot be traced to a discriminatory intent. This require-

ment derives from a 1941 act of the Texas Legislature which

seemed to be concerned with difficulties encountered in conducting

elections in cities with populations of more than 200,000 and

which utilize voting-machines. Finally, there is no evidence

that the charter revision of 1970 calling'for four councilmen to
reside in designated geographic distnicts hras intended to dis--. -

criminate against Mexican-Americans.--At the same time, the City
has certainly had the opportunity to adopt a single-membei

district scheme. The idea was proposed by some members of the

City Charter Revision Commission in 1970 but was never adopted,

even at the subcommittee IeveI. There was evidence-that the

topic surfaced again in a Charter Advisory Commission in L974 but
was never officially proposed. The most recent occasion was'the
so-calIed committee of sixteen, appointed by the city council in
1981, apparently for the express purpose of reconrmending an

-20-



electoral scheme which would make the council more r"pr"r.htative

of the overall community. The Committee was composed of seven

Anglos, seven Mexican-Americans and two Blacks. The Committee

could never reach two-thirds agreement on any plan and apparently

terminated its work once the present lawsuit was filed.

Conclusions of Law

1. This Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine

the issues raised in Plaintiffs' compraint. 42 u.s.c. s1923, 2g

u.s.c. ss1331, 1343.

2. Praintiffs seek relief under both the voting Rights

Act of 1965, 42 u.s,c. 51973, et seq. r Ers amended, and also under

the Fourteenth and Eifteenth Amendments of the United States

Constitution.

3. To prevail on their constitutional claims, plain-

tiffs must Prove that the voting scheme under attack was either
conceived or has been maintained for invidious purposes. In
other words, Plaintiffs must prove a racially discriminatory
intent on the part of the Defendants. - Rogers v. Herman Lodge,

LO2 S. Ct. 32?2 (1982).- The Court has found that the at-Iarge
electoral scheme was not adopted for- the purpose of discriminating-.
against }lexican-Americans. Whether it has been maintained over -

the past decade for that purpose is a closer question, but one

. that the Court need not reach in view of the conclusions reached

on the Voting Rights Act claim.

4. The Voting Rights Act ("Act,') provides that no.
1..

, voting practice or procedure shalr be impo.sed or applied by any

-2l--



abridgement of the right of any citizen to vote on ac"ourrt of
membership in a language minority group. The City of Corpus

Christi is a political subdivision within the meaning of the Act

and the election system used for election of council members is a

voting practice or procedure within the meaning of the Act.

5. The Act was amended by Congress effective June 29,

1982. The amended section provides that a violation of 1aw is
estabrished if, based on "the totality of circumstances, it is
shown that the political processes reading to nomination or
election in the...Political subdivision are not equally open to
participation by members of a class of citizens protected by (the

Act) in that its members have less opportunity than other members

of the electorate to participate in the political process and to
elect representatives of their choice',.

6. The Senate Report on the amendment expressly states
that the PurPose of the amendment was to.eliminate the requirement
that plaintiffs prove a discriminatory intent, instead substituting
a "resurts" test. s. REp. No. Lgg2, 97th cong., 2d sess. 15

(1982) - To establish a violation under the amended Act, plaintiffs
can show a variety of factors of which the report describes some

nine as being "typicar". rd. at 2g-29. These factors have been
gleaned from prior case raw, most notably whitg v. Regester, 4L2

U.S. 755 (1973); Nevett v. Sides, 571 p.2d ZOg (5th Cir. 197g),
cert. denied, 446 U.S. 951 (1980); and Zimmer v. McKeithen, 4g5

F.2d 1297 (5th Cir. 1973), aff'd on other grounds sub nom., East
carroll p"!sh school Board v. Marshall , 424 u. s. 636 (1975) (per
curiam). As reflected by the extensive findings of fact heretofore

-22-



i tt r

made, the Court has endeavored to weigh and consider eachlof the
factors deemed relevant under the Act. rn so doing, the court
concrudes, based on the totality of circumstances, that the
Mexican-American citizens of Corpus Christi have less opportunity.
than the Anglo citizens to participate in the politicar process
and particularly to elect representatives of their choice.

7- Ad.mittedly, the evidence did not reflect the crassic
discrimination case where the majority always votes for Anglo
candidates while the minority always votes for minority candidates,
thus resulting in a total failure to ever elect a minority candidate.
rnstead, the evidence reveaLed a far more subtle picture. clearly,
a few minority candidates have been elected over the years. l.thire
the extent to which members of a protected class have been elected
to office is one circumstance which may be considered under the
Act, 42 u -s-c.- s1973 (b), the success of minority candidates at
the polrs does not necessarily foreclose the possibility of vote
dilution. zimmer v. McKeithen, 4g5 r..2d at 1307. Thusr ES

commanded to do- so by the Act, the court has rooked at the
rtotality,' of the circumstances.

g. rn so doing, the court has found that the Mexican_.-
Americans in corpus christi constitute a distinct minority group. -

For many years, lasting through at least the mid-Ig5O,s, they
b'ere the victims of pervasive discrimination. vestiges of that
discrimination sti1l remain so that the average Mexican-American
has attained a significantly lower educational lever and earhs
significantly ress income than his Anglo counterpart. Approxi-
mately 55t of the I'lexican-American population of corpus christi

-23-



.l

is concentrated in a contiguous area known as the Westsidd, which

is generally the older and poorer section of the city. There is
a clear, even startling, correlation between voting patterns and

ethnicity in the various precincts. In recent elect.oral history,
whenever there has been a clear electoral choice, whether it be

slate versus slate or between credible independent candidates,
the voting in the Westside and the Southside is highly polarized.,
usually a.mirror opposite. The choice of the Westside voters
invariabry 1oses. As late as 1971, heated political campaigns

featured open appeals to the voter's ethnicity. The first
Mexican-American elected to the city council in this century won

his seat in 1955. Since then a total of only eight other Mexican-

American individuals have won a city election. only one has

lived in the westside..- A11 have won their elections by being
members of a slate basically assembled by Anglo Southside leaders.
The only exception is Gabe Lozano, Sr., who ran as an independent

in 1975 despite being'3 successful slate candidate in 197I, ],g73

and L977. His 1975 oPPonent was another Mexican-American running
on a sIate.'- 'See Pinding-No.- 25. There is evidence-that slating..
has now lost its- political impact which has resulted in the
absence of any Mexican-Americans on the present council and makes

the westside voterrs opportunity to elect a candidate in the future
even more problematical. The present electoral scheme requires a

candidate to run in a district which encompasses an area of 116.5
square miles. The charter requires a majority vote. Because a

candidate must file for a place, the procedure effectively
prohibits single-shot voting. The ci.ty council has bee.n fairly

-24-



resPonsive to the needs of the Westside community in most'basic
services, although it has been somewhat insensitive to the

Plaintiffs' cultural interests. Employment practices are adequate

at middle and lower IeveIs but sti11 inadequate at professional
and administrative levels. The present council members themselves

are not unwilling to remedy this situation and indeed are trying
to progress. In fact, the present administration has seemingly

recognized that the present electoral system is less than satis-
factory and created a blue-ribbon committee to propose a remedy

but the committee could--not reach a- two-thirds agreement on any

one plan.

9. The totality of those circumstances convinces the
Court that the Plaintiffs have established Lheir claim under the
Act; therefore, the further use of the at-rarge system for
election of city council members in the City of Corpus Christi,
Texas should be prohibited.

I0. Defendants shall, within thirty (30) days, submit
to the Court a ProPosed new plan for electing persons to the city
council and simultaneously. serve a copy of same.upon plaintiffsl
counsel- Obviously,-it would be in the best interests of all
citizenSifthepartiescanreachanagreementononepIan.If

not, the court wilr review the proposal and issue whatever
further orders are required at that time.

rr. There remains pending a motion by Defendant
Herbert Hawkins to realign himself as a plaintiff. The rnotibn
was not fired until after the trial in this case. Hawkins, an
incumbent city councilman, is one who will necessarily be involved

-25-



a-

A (r r

in proposing a plan on behalf of the Defendants. No usefrll
purPose would be Eetived by considering a realignment at this
time. The motion is denied as moot.

DONE at Laredo, Texas, this ?rd day of February, 1993.

esD

-26-