Opinion ID: 353287
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Intent in Fourteenth Amendment Dilution Claims

Text: 27 We start with a reiteration of the principle expounded by the Supreme Court in Davis. Where official action is racially neutral on its face, courts must adhere to the basic equal protection principle that the invidious quality of a law claimed to be racially discriminatory must ultimately be traced to a racially discriminatory purpose. 426 U.S. at 240, 96 S.Ct. at 2048; accord, United States v. Texas Education Agency, 564 F.2d 162, 165-66 (5th Cir. 1977). The Court restated this teaching in Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.,429 U.S. 252, 265, 97 S.Ct. 555, 563, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977): Proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The language of Davis and Arlington Heights appears to establish intent as a prerequisite of universal applicability to fourteenth amendment claims of racial discrimination. 11 For appellants to succeed in their assertion that racially discriminatory intent need not be shown in dilution cases, we must find such cases exempt from the general principle enunciated in Davis and Arlington Heights. We do not so find. 28 It is readily apparent that voting dilution cases are quite typical of traditional fourteenth amendment cases. Here the appellants challenge legislation establishing at-large districting, a practice racially neutral on its face, as discriminatory in its effect: blacks do not elect their proportionate share of the city council. In Davis, the plaintiffs attacked a written personnel test, itself devoid of racial overtones, that had the effect of failing four times as many blacks as whites. And in Arlington Heights, blacks challenged a zoning ordinance prohibiting multi-family development, again a neutral provision, that resulted in the virtual exclusion of racial minority groups. The plaintiffs failed in both of these latter cases because they had not shown the official action to be racially motivated. Simply put, (p)roof of a racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. 29 The language of the Court in Davis and Arlington Heights is unambiguous and admits of no exception. Analytically, nothing about at-large districting legislation suggests that it should be treated differently from any other manifestation of official action that may impact groups of people differentially. This observation is substantiated by the reliance of the Court in Davis and Arlington Heights upon Wright v. Rockefeller, 376 U.S. 52, 84 S.Ct. 603, 11 L.Ed.2d 512 (1964), a case that entertained an allegation that New York's congressional apportionment plan was a racial gerrymander. 30 In Davis and Arlington Heights, the Court buttressed its holdings by referring to Wright and other fourteenth amendment cases that held intentional discrimination necessary. The Davis opinion contains the following discussion: 31 The rule is the same in other contexts. Wright v. Rockefeller, 376 U.S. 52, 84 S.Ct. 603, 11 L.Ed.2d 512 (1964), upheld a New York congressional apportionment statute against claims that district lines had been racially gerrymandered. The challenged districts were made up predominantly of whites or of minority races, and their boundaries were irregularly drawn. The challengers did not prevail because they failed to prove that the New York legislature 'was either motivated by racial considerations or in fact drew the districts on racial lines'; the plaintiffs had not shown that the statute 'was the product of a state contrivance to segregate on the basis of race or place of origin.' 376 U.S. at 56, 58, 84 S.Ct. at 605, 11 L.Ed.2d, at 515. The dissenters were in agreement that the issue was whether the 'boundaries . . . were purposefully drawn on racial lines.' 376 U.S. at 67, 84 S.Ct. at 611, 11 L.Ed.2d at 522. 32 426 U.S. at 240, 96 S.Ct. at 2047; accord, Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 265, 97 S.Ct. 555. 33 This very recent reaffirmation of the holding in Wright leaves no doubt that a showing of intent is a necessary element in a case alleging a racial gerrymander. 12 We see no distinction that would call for different constitutional requisites in a racial gerrymander case than in a voting dilution case such as this. The right allegedly infringed is the same in both contexts: the right to effective participation in the electoral process. An unconstitutional gerrymander violates this right by compartmentalizing or fencing out a group, e. g., Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339, 81 S.Ct. 125, 5 L.Ed.2d 110 (1960), or by slicing up a compact minority, e. g., Kirksey v. Board of Supervisors,554 F.2d 139 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, ---U.S. ----, 98 S.Ct. 512, 54 L.Ed.2d 454 (1977); Robinson v. Commissioners Court, 505 F.2d 674 (5th Cir. 1974). An invidious at-large scheme merely achieves the same end, denial of effective participation, by submerging an interest group in a constituency large enough and polarized enough to place that group in the minority consistently. 34 That the constitutional tests should be the same whether the right to an equally effective vote is denied by drawing district lines or erasing them is illustrated in a number of our cases. We have repeatedly held the Zimmer criteria relevant to gerrymander as well as dilution cases. In Robinson v. Commissioners Court, 505 F.2d 674 (5th Cir. 1974), a case finding a racially motivated gerrymander that fragmented what could otherwise be a cohesive voting community, id. at 679, we stated: 35 The standards for decision in dilution cases are developed primarily in cases dealing with (at-large) districting (citing, inter alia, White v. Regester, Whitcomb v. Chavis, and Zimmer v. McKeithen ). But we have no hesitation in applying (those tests to) measure . . . the constitutionality of reapportionment plans involving only single-member districts. In each instance, we are required to determine the same question, whether or not there has been an unconstitutional manipulation of electoral district boundaries so as to minimize or dilute the voting strength of a minority class or interest. 36 Id. at 678 (quoting Howard v. Adams County Board of Supervisors, 453 F.2d 455, 458 n. 2 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 407 U.S. 925, 92 S.Ct. 2461, 32 L.Ed.2d 812 (1972)) (emphasis added); accord, Kirksey v. Board of Supervisors, 554 F.2d at 143. Since we find no constitutionally significant distinction between this case and a gerrymander case like Wright v. Rockefeller, a decision expressly reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Davis and Arlington Heights, we hold that a showing of racially motivated discrimination is a necessary element in an equal protection voting dilution claim such as the one presented in this case. 13 B. Intent in Fifteenth Amendment Dilution Claims 37 The appellants allege that Fairfield's at-large plan is violative of the fifteenth amendment as well as the fourteenth. Thus, we must determine whether illicit motivation is a prerequisite to a successful claim under the fifteenth amendment. We hold that it is. 38 The fifteenth amendment is a specific prohibition against state or federal action that denies or abridges (t)he right of citizens of the United States to vote . . . on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. U.S.Const. amend. XV, § 1. Historically, this amendment was the vehicle of first resort for blacks alleging impairment of their franchise. 14 It protects the rights of blacks to participate at all levels of the political process and interdicts all methods demonstrably contrived to diminish this participation. 15 As the Supreme Court stated in the case of Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268, 275, 59 S.Ct. 872, 876, 83 L.Ed. 1281 (1939): 39 The (Fifteenth) Amendment nullifies sophisticated as well as simple-minded modes of discrimination. It hits onerous procedural requirements which effectively handicap exercise of the franchise by the colored race although the abstract right to vote may remain unrestricted as to race. 40 Broad though the reach of the amendment may be, it has been invoked successfully only in cases founded on acts of intentional racial discrimination. The necessary motivation was painfully apparent in the early cases striking down the exclusion of blacks from party primaries, e. g., Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461, 463-65, 73 S.Ct. 809, 97 L.Ed. 1152 (1953); the grandfather clause, Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347, 364-66, 35 S.Ct. 926, 59 L.Ed. 1340 (1915); and the invidious administration of literacy tests, e. g., Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145, 151-53, 85 S.Ct. 817, 13 L.Ed.2d 709 (1965). Moreover, and of particular relevance to the inquiry before us, racially discriminatory motivations were unmistakably present in Gomillion, where the Court remarked that if the plaintiffs could prove their allegations, 41 the conclusion would be irresistable, tantamount for all practical purposes to a mathematical demonstration, that the legislation is solely concerned with segregating white and colored voters by fencing Negro citizens out of town so as to deprive them of their pre-existing municipal vote. 42 364 U.S. at 341, 81 S.Ct. at 127. These cases illustrate what is apparent on the face of the amendment: a showing of racially motivated official action that infringes the right to vote is sufficient to state a cause of action. 43 Our holding is the converse of this proposition. A showing of improper motivation or purpose is necessary to establish a valid cause of action under the fifteenth amendment. Our conclusion is compelled by Wright, the Supreme Court decision we have held controlling on the issue of intent in the fourteenth amendment claims in this case. Wright was brought under the fifteenth amendment as well. 376 U.S. at 56, 84 S.Ct. 603. That the Court held a showing of intentional discrimination was essential to a valid claim in that case implies as a matter of logic that such a demonstration is necessary under both fourteenth and fifteenth amendments. 44 Cases in this circuit exemplify the teaching of Wright. In Bradas v. Rapides Parish Police Jury, 508 F.2d 1109 (5th Cir. 1975), we vacated and remanded a judgment finding an at-large plan violative of the fifteenth amendment. Writing for the court, Judge Simpson stated: 45 it does not suffice to show that the use of (at-large) districts has diminished to some extent the proportion of blacks in the voting unit unless some evidence also demonstrates that such (at-large) districts were conceived or operated as purposeful devices to further racial or economic discrimination. 46 Id. at 1113 (quoting Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. at 149, 91 S.Ct. 1858); see Paige v. Gray, 538 F.2d 1108 (5th Cir. 1976). 47 We have held that the appellants cannot succeed on either their fourteenth or fifteenth amendment claims unless they establish that Fairfield's at-large method of electing its city council exists because of invidious racial motivations. In the following section we demonstrate that the controlling dilution precedents of this circuit are consistent with this holding. C. Fifth Circuit Dilution Precedents 48 The Alabama statute enabling Fairfield to establish its at-large electoral scheme was enacted in 1909. In 1901, however, Alabama had adopted a constitution which had effectively disenfranchised blacks. The appellees contend, therefore, that the 1909 statute could not have been adopted with a racial animus because no blacks who could have been discriminated against could vote. See McGill v. Gadsden County Commission, 535 F.2d 277, 279-80 (5th Cir. 1976); Taylor v. McKeithen, 499 F.2d 893 (5th Cir. 1974). Although we accept the district court's finding that the 1909 plan was adopted without discriminatory intent, cases of this circuit emphasize that the search for improper motivation does not end at the enacting stage. Thomasville Branch of the NAACP v. Thomas County, 571 F.2d 257 (5th Cir. 1978). A plan, racially neutral at its adoption, may further preexisting intentional discrimination, e. g., Kirksey, or it may be maintained for invidious purposes, e. g., Bolden v. City of Mobile, 571 F.2d 238 (5th Cir. 1978). 49 Whether invidious discrimination motivates the adoption or maintenance of a districting scheme or whether the plan furthers preexisting purposeful discrimination, the intent requirement may be satisfied by direct or circumstantial evidence. Where direct evidence of discriminatory motive is proffered, a case is easily made, see, e. g., Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461, 73 S.Ct. 809, 97 L.Ed. 1152 (1953), as it is where the circumstantial evidence of racially discriminatory motivation is so strikingly obvious that no alternative explanation is plausible, e. g., Gomillion; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886). But such cases are rare. Absent a pattern as stark as that in Gomillion or Yick Wo, impact alone is not determinative, and the Court must look to other evidence. Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266, 97 S.Ct. at 564 (footnotes omitted). An examination of the Zimmer factors shows that they constitute other evidence that a court must consider in determining whether the districting scheme exists because of invidious racial considerations. 50 The Zimmer criteria go to the issue of intentional discrimination, first of all, because they would be irrelevant if motivation were not an issue. If, as the appellants suggest, it is sufficient that the combination of a legal system (at-large election) with the minority status of blacks and a societal system (racially polarized voting) has the effect of diluting black voting strength then of what relevance is the accessibility of political processes to blacks, the responsiveness of the city council to the needs of blacks, the weight of the state policy behind the at-large plan, or the existence of past discrimination in the electoral process? Moreover, the Supreme Court has squarely rejected the contention that at-large elections are unconstitutional merely because fewer minority candidates are elected, due to polarized voting, than would correspond to the minority's portion of the district population. Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124, 91 S.Ct. 1858, 29 L.Ed.2d 363 (1971). It is clear, therefore, that mere disproportionate effects are not enough to invalidate an at-large plan and hence that the Zimmer criteria purport to establish something more. 51 Perhaps the most useful approach to analyzing the Zimmer criteria as they relate to the existence of intentional discrimination is to assume that an at-large scheme is being used as a vehicle for achieving the constitutionally prohibited end. The objective of such a scheme would be to prevent a group from effectively participating in elections so that the governing body need not respond to the group's needs. This objective would be achieved by insuring that a cohesive group remains a minority in the voting population, thus preventing that group from electing minority representatives or from holding nonminority representatives accountable. 52 Circumstantial evidence that the plan was enacted with discriminatory intent may exist in the form of starkly differential racial impact; the historical background of the plan, particularly if it reveals a series of official actions taken for invidious purposes; or the specific sequence of events leading up to the challenged decision. Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 267, 97 S.Ct. at 564; see Smith v. Paris, 257 F.Supp. 901 (M.D.Ala.1966), aff'd per curiam, 386 F.2d 979 (5th Cir. 1967); Sims v. Baggett, 247 F.Supp. 96 (M.D.Ala.1965). Such was the approach of the inquiries in Davis and Arlington Heights, cases we noted recently in Kirksey v. Board of Supervisors to be of particular significance . . . if the only issue were whether the racially neutral plan created such exclusion (from the electoral process). 554 F.2d at 147 (emphasis in original). But, as we held in Kirksey, the inquiry does not stop at the enacting stage. 53 Where evidence of discriminatory intent is lacking in the enacting processes, the Zimmer criteria become acutely relevant. They may demonstrate, as in Kirksey, that the neutral plan is an instrumentality for carrying forward patterns of purposeful and intentional discrimination. 554 F.2d at 147. In Kirksey, the plan was recently formulated, and it perpetuated past intentional discrimination. A remotely enacted plan, such as the 1909 plan in this case, that was adopted without racial motivations may become a vehicle for the exclusion of meaningful minority input because intervening circumstances cause the plan to work that way. When the more blatant obstacles to black access are struck down, such an at-large plan may operate to devalue black participation so as to allow representatives to ignore black needs. Where the plan is maintained with the purpose of excluding minority input, the necessary intent is established, and the plan is unconstitutional. We so hold today in Bolden v. City of Mobile. 54 Whether the plan is recent or remote, the Zimmer criteria provide a factual basis from which the necessary intent may be inferred. Consider a plan neutral in its enactment that is used as a vehicle for intentionally ignoring black interests. The existence of such discrimination presupposes racially polarized voting in the electorate. 16 Polarized or bloc voting, although in itself constitutionally unobjectionable 17 , allows representatives to ignore minority interests without fear of reprisal at the polls. When bloc voting has been demonstrated, 18 a showing under Zimmer that the governing body is unresponsive to minority needs is strongly corroborative of an intentional exploitation of the electorate's bias. The likelihood of intentional exploitation is enhanced by the existence of systemic devices such as a majority vote requirement, an anti-single shot provision, and the lack of a requirement that representatives reside in subdistricts. Zimmer, 485 F.2d at 1305. As the Supreme Court observed, (t)hese characteristics of (an) electoral system, neither in themselves improper nor invidious, (enhance) the opportunity for racial discrimination . . . . White v. Regester, 412 U.S. at 766, 93 S.Ct. at 2340. 55 The establishment under Zimmer that blacks have been denied access to slating, registration, or other aspects of political participation may indicate that if white representatives have not properly entertained black interests, it is because blacks cannot achieve the input to which they are entitled. See Wallace v. House, 515 F.2d 619, 622-23 (5th Cir. 1975), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 425 U.S. 947, 96 S.Ct. 1721, 48 L.Ed.2d 191 (1976). Under the proper circumstances, such a showing would satisfy the intent requirement. 19 56 A tenuous state policy in favor of at-large districting may constitute evidence that other, improper motivations lay behind the enactment or maintenance of the plan. The absence of a significant and legitimate state policy behind districting provisions has been an important factor in several cases finding intentional discrimination. In Gomillion, the defendant city officials had never suggested, either in their brief or in oral argument, any countervailing municipal function which (the districting act) is designed to serve. 364 U.S. at 342, 81 S.Ct. at 127. And in Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347, 35 S.Ct. 926, 59 L.Ed. 1340 (1915), which struck down Oklahoma's grandfather clause, the Court stated: we are unable to discover how, unless the prohibitions of the 15th Amendment were considered, the slightest reason was afforded for basing the classification upon a period of time prior to the 15th Amendment. Id. at 366, 35 S.Ct. at 931. Although state statutes generally need satisfy only minimum rationality requirements, see, e. g., Hennessey v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 564 F.2d 1136, 1144 (5th Cir. 1977), the weight of the state policy behind the districting plan is an evidentiary consideration that must be considered along with all other relevant evidence to determine whether the plan is improperly motivated. 20 57 That the finder of fact determines the plaintiff has prevailed under one or even several of the Zimmer criteria may not establish the existence of intentional discrimination. See, e. g., McGill v. Gadsden County Commission, 535 F.2d 277 (5th Cir. 1976). The evidence under the other criteria may weigh so heavily in favor of the defendant that the evidence as a whole will not bear an inference of invidious discrimination. Of course, the plaintiff need not prevail under all of the criteria, Zimmer, 485 F.2d at 1305, nor is he limited to them. 21 The task before the fact finder is to determine, under all the relevant facts, in whose favor the aggregate of the evidence preponderates. 22 This determination is peculiarly dependent upon the facts of each case. It comprehends a blend of history and an intensely local appraisal of the design and impact of the (at-large) district in the light of past and present reality, political and otherwise. White v. Regester, 412 U.S. at 769-70, 93 S.Ct. at 2341. It is the obligation, therefore, of the finder of fact carefully to examine and weigh the competing factors to determine whether the coincidence of those probative of intentional discrimination is sufficient. Determining whether invidious discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor demands a sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence of intent as may be available. Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266, 97 S.Ct. at 564. 58 We take this opportunity to address language in several opinions of this circuit that has caused some apparent confusion in this changing and complex area of the law. It appears that a number of our cases have espoused alternative approaches available to plaintiffs in dilution cases. The earliest case setting forth these alternatives is Howard v. Board of Supervisors, 453 F.2d 455 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 407 U.S. 925, 92 S.Ct. 2461, 32 L.Ed.2d 812 (1972). 59 As we view the constitutional requirements in this area, to establish the existence of a constitutionally impermissible redistricting plan, in the absence of malapportionment, plaintiffs must maintain the burden of proving (1) a racially motivated gerrymander, or a plan drawn along racial lines, Wright v. Rockefeller, 1964, 376 U.S. 52, 84 S.Ct. 603, 11 L.Ed.2d 512; Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 1960, 364 U.S. 339, 81 S.Ct. 125, 5 L.Ed.2d 110; Sims v. Baggett, M.D.Ala.1965, 247 F.Supp. 96, or (2) that . . . designedly or otherwise, a(n) . . . apportionment scheme, under the circumstances of a particular case, would operate to minimize or cancel out the voting strength of racial or political elements of the voting population. Burns v. Richardson, 1966, 384 U.S. 73, 88, 86 S.Ct. 1286, 1294, 16 L.Ed.2d 376. See Whitcomb v. Chavis, 1971, 403 U.S. 124, 143-144, 149, 91 S.Ct. 1858, 29 L.Ed.2d 363. 60 Id. at 457-58 (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted). Subsequent decisions have reiterated these standards. Panior v. Iberville Parish School Board, 536 F.2d 101, 104-05 (5th Cir. 1976); Ferguson v. Winn Parish Police Jury, 528 F.2d 592, 596-97 (5th Cir. 1976); Wallace v. House, 515 F.2d 619, 622-23 (5th Cir. 1975), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 425 U.S. 947, 96 S.Ct. 1721, 48 L.Ed.2d 191 (1976); Bradas v. Rapides Parish Police Jury, 508 F.2d 1109, 1113 (5th Cir. 1975); Robinson v. Commissioners Court, 505 F.2d 674, 678 n. 3 (5th Cir. 1974); Moore v. Leflore County Board of Election Commissioners, 502 F.2d 621, 623-24 (5th Cir. 1974); Zimmer, 485 F.2d at 1304. 61 The first approach open to plaintiffs is one we have already discussed. Blacks challenging a districting system may succeed under a Gomillion -type rationale by establishing that the plan was enacted with discriminatory purpose. The second avenue, however, seems to allow plaintiffs to succeed under a dilution rationale without establishing intentional discrimination. To the extent that these cases suggest that intent is not required, they cannot be reconciled with the intervening Supreme Court decisions in Davis and Arlington Heights. 62 In each of these Fifth Circuit cases, however, such language was not operative. In Robinson v. Commissioners Court, the plan was struck down under the first alternative: intentional discrimination was found. The district court determined . . . that the County Commissioners' apportionment was designed precisely to dilute the black vote and . . . we find no reason on this record to reject that conclusion as clearly erroneous. 505 F.2d at 679 (emphasis added). Those cases finding dilution under the second alternative did so on the basis of Zimmer. Wallace v. House, 515 F.2d at 623-24; Moore v. Leflore County Board of Election Commissioners, 502 F.2d at 624-25; cf. Ferguson v. Winn Parish Police Jury, 528 F.2d at 598-99. We hold today that a finding of dilution under Zimmer raises an inference of intentional discrimination, and, therefore, the essential element of intent was present in each of these cases. Finally, cases finding no dilution, like Howard v. Board of Supervisors, Panoir v. Iberville Parish School Board, and Bradas v. Rapides Parish Police Jury, cannot establish the proposition that intent is unnecessary to make out a dilution case. 63 Having determined that plaintiffs must make a showing of intentional discrimination to prevail in a dilution case, and having set forth the means of establishing the requisite showing, we now turn to the specifics of this case to measure it against the standards we have enunciated.