Opinion ID: 386196
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: City Council

Text: 39 In 1931 a council-manager form of government was instituted in Pensacola. As originally enacted, it provided for ten council members: five were elected from single-member wards and five were elected at-large but with a ward residency requirement. 40 In 1955, a black ran a very close race against a white for one of the single-member district seats. There was testimony that when the council next reapportioned the wards, it purposefully gerrymandered that ward to increase its percentage of whites. Furthermore, three years later, the council asked the local legislative delegation to change the law so that all the council members would run at-large. A man who served on the city council at that time testified at trial, and the following colloquy occurred: 41 THE COURT: And the reason for that change (to 10 at-large seats) was what? 42 A. Was because then we wouldn't have this hassle of reapportioning to keep so many blacks in this ward and so many whites in that ward and keep the population in balance as to race. 43 (R. XVI-605). 44 Other evidence of an invidious purpose in changing those five single-member district seats to at-large seats came in testimony by then-Governor Reubin Askew. In 1959, Askew was a first-term state representative from Escambia County. He testified that he did not have a discriminatory motive in supporting the change to all at-large seats, testimony which was credited by the district court. He further testified that though he was unaware of the council members' motives generally, he was aware that one council member had indicated the change was wanted to avoid a salt and pepper council. 45 On the eve of the referendum election at which the change to all at-large seats was at issue, an editorial in the Pensacola Journal stated that there would be advantages to having all council members elected at-large. One reason is that small groups which might dominate one ward could not choose a councilman. Thus, one ward might conceivably elect a Negro councilman though the city as a whole would not. This probably is the prime reason behind the proposed change. 46 It is not easy for a court in 1981 to decide what motivated people in 1959. The series of events leading up to the current system of electing the city council of Pensacola, however, certainly suggests racial motivation. Furthermore, though not legislative history, editorials written contemporaneously with the action are probative evidence of the motivation of the action. 47 The district court found that (t)he conclusion of plaintiffs' expert historian that race was a concurrent motivating factor in the 1959 change is inescapable (footnote omitted). We agree.