Opinion ID: 763120
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The class's arguments on appeal

Text: 32 The class sets forth a series of arguments on appeal that are only tangentially related to the Gingles preconditions. In the interests of thoroughness, we have summarized them below.
33 The class argues that the district court erred because it disregarded testimony that Ohio's electoral system discourages minorities from running for judicial office. To the contrary, the district court concluded that [b]ecause candidates who do not run cannot be elected, it is impossible to statistically measure this so-called chilling effect. Although conceding that this statement is technically accurate, the class labels it cynical, and accuses the district court of a lack of understanding of the continuing impact of racially discriminatory practices that, when coupled with patterns of consistent racial bloc voting, deters African Americans from fully participating in the judicial electoral process. The class further complains that the district court analyzed only those elections in which African-American candidates participated. 34 Although the class argues that the district court failed to take account of the alleged chilling effect, it provides no legal support for its argument. The class cites no case that holds that a § 2 claim may proceed in the absence of statistical evidence of racial bloc voting. Furthermore, the charge that the district court ignored patterns of racial bloc voting is unsupportable, because the class was unable to prove that such voting occurred. Finally, the claim that the district court erred in not looking at elections in which African-Americans did not run is without merit. Based upon the statistics offered by both sides at trial, the district court concluded that African-American attorneys in the challenged districts are actually more likely to be elected to the bench than are their Caucasian colleagues. 35 The class, however, cites three cases from other circuits for the proposition that district courts should consider the possibility that African-Americans do not run because they cannot win. See Nipper v. Smith, 1 F.3d 1171, 1179-80 (11th Cir.1993); Westwego Citizens for Better Gov't v. Westwego, 872 F.2d 1201, 1208-09 n. 9 (5th Cir.1989); McMillan v. Escambia County, 748 F.2d 1037, 1045 (5th Cir.1984). But even if this circuit were to adopt such an approach, it would only apply in a case where there was evidence that African-Americans could not win. Here, the evidence shows exactly the opposite. 36
37 The class also contends that the district court erred because it ignored testimony that the lack of African-American judges undermines the perceptions of African-Americans regarding the fairness of the judiciary. Although the class hastens to point out that it does not allege the absence of impartial justice, it claims that the perception of justice is being damaged. 38 Whatever the merits of this issue as a political matter, no court has ever held that such a contention is relevant to a § 2 case. The class is unable to cite a single case adopting this theory, and the claim finds no support in the language of the Voting Rights Act. 39
40 The class expends much energy contesting the district court's conclusion that it lacked the power to order the remedy of single-member judicial districts, going so far as to attack the court for its fear of that remedy. This claim, however, is not relevant because the issue of a remedy arises only after a violation of the Voting Rights Act has been established. Because such a violation was not shown, it is unnecessary to reach the class's contentions on this issue. 41
42 The class also challenges the district court's finding that the state has a substantial interest in the linkage of a court's jurisdiction to the judge's electoral district. In response, the state explains that jurisdiction-wide accountability helps insulate judges from the pressures of special interest groups and particular segments of the electorate. Judges, the state claims, must avoid being accountable to only a certain segment of those persons over whom the court's jurisdiction extends, for fear that such a system would give the appearance of favoritism. 43 The class claims that in evaluating the totality of the circumstances, the district court gave too much weight to Ohio's alleged interest. This is especially true, it says, because the state is inconsistent in its application of the policy. In support of this argument, the class points out that some municipal courts are county-wide, while others are municipally based. Although the class correctly describes the court systems of the several counties, the state established that the principle of linkage is nevertheless consistently applied within those jurisdictions. We concur in the district court's conclusion that the state of Ohio has a legitimate interest in linkage, and find no error in its discussion of this issue.
44 Finally, the class contends that the use of anti-single shot devices in the challenged courts dilutes minority voting opportunities. Anti-single-shot devices are electoral elements that prevent voters from concentrating all of a voter's available votes for a single candidate. Examples include numbered posts, by which, say, four open seats are filled in four separate contests instead of one, or staggered terms, such that only one seat is filled in any given election. It is undisputed that Ohio in fact utilizes numbered posts. 45 This claim is essentially an alternate theory of liability under the Voting Rights Act. Because it was apparently not raised in the district court below, the class has waived its right to argue the point on appeal. See White v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 899 F.2d 555, 559 (6th Cir.1990) (This court will not decide issues or claims not litigated before the district court.) Furthermore, the claim is unavailing in any event because the class is still required to prove the same Gingles preconditions to make out a dilution claim, regardless of the precise mechanism alleged to be its cause. Because these preconditions were not established, this claim is without merit.