Court Opinion

ID: 9479417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:18:09.029095+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:01.988458
License: Public Domain

HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Today, the majority resolves the question presented — whether Roberts has standing to claim a violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act— through an artifice of statutory interpretation. It holds that Congress did not intend to intercede into state and local elections. I disagree. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was intended to enforce the Civil War amendments, particularly the 15th amendment, as against state election laws to the contrary. The House Report to the 1965 Act stated the following:
PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION
The bill, as amended, is designed primarily to enforce the 15th amendment to the Constitution of the United States and is also designed to enforce the 14th amendment and article I, section 4. To accomplish this objective, the bill (1) suspends the use of literacy and other tests and devices in areas where there is reason to believe that such tests and devices have been and are being used to deny the right to vote on account of race or color; (2) authorizes the appointment of Federal examiners in such areas to register persons who are qualified under State law, except insofar as such law is suspended by this act, to vote in State, local and Federal elections; (3) empowers the Federal courts, in any action instituted by the Attorney General, to enforce the guarantees of the 15th amendment, to authorize the appointment of Federal examiners, pending final determination of the suit or after a final judgment in which the court finds that violations of the 15th amendment have occurred; (4) provides criminal penalties for intimidating, threatening, or coercing any person for voting or attempting to vote, or for urging or aiding any person to vote or to attempt to vote. In addition, civil remedies and criminal remedies are provided for the enforcement of the act.
H.R.Rep. No. 439, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., reprinted in 1965 U.S.CODE CONG. & ADMIN.NEWS 2437, 2437.
In light of the general purpose of the Act, I believe that Roberts has standing because he was both a voter and a candidate for elected office. Moreover, upon reaching the merits, I would affirm the district court.
I. STANDING
A. AS A VOTER
Regardless of whether a candidate for office has standing to sue under the Voting Rights Act, a voter does have standing. To establish standing pursuant to Article III of the Constitution, Roberts must show a distinct and palpable injury to himself caused by the challenged actions of the defendants. Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 261, 97 S.Ct. 555, 561, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977).
The trial court made the following finding of fact: “Plaintiff, Michael V. Roberts, is a black citizen of the United States of America, and a resident and registered voter of the City of St. Louis, Missouri.” Roberts v. Wamser, 679 F.Supp. 1513, 1514 (E.D.Mo.1987).1
*625Roberts, as a voter, suffered a distinct and palpable injury. His right to vote, as a black citizen of the City of St. Louis, was allegedly infringed upon by racial discrimination. He thereby was denied equal opportunity to participate in the political process. The failure to manually recount those ballots rejected by the punch card tabulating system caused Roberts, as a black voter, to have less opportunity than other members of the City’s electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. Roberts, 679 F.Supp. at 1532.2
In addition to the Article III limitation on standing requiring injury in fact, a plaintiff who invokes a statutory provision must be arguably within the zone of interests or persons the provision was intended to safeguard. Data Processing Service v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153, 90 S.Ct. 827, 829, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970). In recognizing this further limitation, the Supreme Court has adopted a self-imposed rule of restraint to allay any fears that the Judicial Branch is overstepping its authority, thereby recognizing a separation of powers between the Legislative and Judicial Branches of the federal government. Id. at 154, 90 S.Ct. at 830.
The predominant goal of the Voting Rights Act is to achieve fuller enforcement of the 15th amendment, and that goal is forwarded by granting voters standing to sue. “It is consistent with the broad purpose of the Act to allow the individual citizen standing_” Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544, 557, 89 S.Ct. 817, 827, 22 L.Ed.2d 1 (1969). The language of section 1973a was amended in 1975 to grant “aggrieved persons” remedies under the Act. Voting Rights Act of 1965—Extension, Pub.L. No. 94-73, § 401, 89 Stat. 400 (1975); S.Rep. No. 295, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., 39-40, reprinted in 1975 U.S.CODE CONG. & ADMIN.NEWS 774, 806. Roberts, as a voter, is an “aggrieved person” for purposes of the Voting Rights Act. Therefore, Roberts, as a voter, has standing to sue for a violation of the Voting Rights Act.
B.' AS A CANDIDATE FOR ELECTED OFFICE
The majority concluded “that Roberts, as a defeated candidate, does not have standing to sue under the Voting Rights Act.” Ante, at 624. I disagree.
Initially, I note that Roberts, as a defeated candidate, meets the Article III requirement for standing of injury in fact. Roberts alleges that he lost the election for President of the Board of Aldermen for the City of St. Louis. This is a direct and palpable injury.3 See Schiaffo v. Helstoski, 492 F.2d 413, 423 (3d Cir.1974) (Schiaffo, as an electoral opponent of Helstoski and a member of an opposition political party within Helstoski’s district, claimed *626some direct injury as a result of Helstoski’s alleged illegal act and does not suffer in some indefinite way in common with people generally). He alleges that this injury was caused in some “concretely demonstrable way” by the punch card voting system in violation of the Voting Rights Act.4 Thus, Roberts, as a candidate, has standing under Article III. See Mancuso v. Taft, 476 F.2d 187, 190 (1st Cir.1973) (“[W]e believe that both candidates and voters may challenge on its face on equal protection grounds a candidacy restriction because of its impact on voting rights.”).
As to the zone of interests test for standing, the majority apparently concludes that Roberts, as a candidate, is not a member of the group sought to be protected or bene-fitted by the Voting Rights Act. In other words, the majority concludes that Congress did not intend the term “aggrieved person” found in 42 U.S.C. 1973a to include a candidate for elected office. Ante, at 621. I disagree.
The Act as originally enacted only afforded the Attorney General remedies for violations of section 2. In 1975, Congress amended the Act to allow “aggrieved persons” the same remedies afforded previously to the Attorney General.5 Voting Rights Act of 1965 — Extension, Pub.L. No. 94-73, § 401, 89 Stat. 400 (1975); S.Rep. No. 295, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., 39-40, reprinted in 1975 U.S.CODE CONG. & ADMIN.NEWS 774, 806. In the Senate Report accompanying the 1975 Amendment, Congress clearly stated what it meant by “aggrieved person.”
An “aggrieved person” is any person injured by an act of discrimination. It may be an individual or an organization representing the interests of injured persons. See Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 409 U.S. 205 [93 S.Ct. 364, 34 L.Ed.2d 415] (1972); and NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 [83 S.Ct. 328, 9 L.Ed.2d 405] (1963). In enacting remedial legislation, Congress has regularly established a dual enforcement mechanism. It has, on the one hand, given enforcement responsibility to a governmental agency, and on the other, has also provided remedies to private persons acting as a class or on their own behalf. The Committee concludes that it is sound policy to authorize private remedies to assist the process of enforcing voting rights.
S.Rep. No. 295, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., 40, reprinted in 1975 U.S.CODE CONG. & ADMIN.NEWS 774, 806-807 (emphasis added). Thus, if a person meets the Article III requirements for standing, that person is an “aggrieved person” under § 1973a and has standing to sue for violations of the Voting Rights Act.6
The majority ignores Congress’ clear expression of intent and denies standing, regardless of injury to Roberts, because of a possible divergence of interests between a candidate and a voter and because federalism mandates unmistakenly clear statutory language. I feel, however, that in this instance neither rationale is a formidable obstacle to Roberts’ standing as a candidate.
First, the majority’s discussion of a possible divergence of interests between a candidate and a citizen seeking to protect his or her right to vote incorrectly narrows the aim of the Act to only the enforcement of *627the 15th amendment. From the beginning, the Voting Rights Act has embraced broader considerations. Guaranteeing the opportunity to participate in the electoral process is implicit in the Act’s directive to enforce the 14th amendment and article I, section 4, of the Constitution, as well as the 15th amendment. H.R.Rep. No. 439, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., reprinted in, 1965 U.S. CODE CONG. & ADMIN.NEWS 2437, 2437. Moreover, the Act was renewed and amended in 1982 to cover a broad array of dilution schemes employed to cancel the impact of the new black vote. S.Rep. No. 417, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., 4-9, 1982 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin.News, pp. 177, ISO-186. Congress added subsection (b) to section 1973. It reads in part:
A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section 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.
As amended Pub.L. 97-205, § 3, 96 Stat. 134 (1982) (emphasis added). While this subsection was specifically addressed at overruling Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980), I also believe that the language is plain evidence of Congress’ intent to protect more than just the right to vote. Congress intended to assure that the “members of the protected class have the same opportunity as others to participate in the electoral process.” 5.Rep. No. 417, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., 67, reprinted in 1982 U.S.CODE CONG. & ADMIN.NEWS 177, 246. Thus, the Voting Rights Act protects both voters’ and candidates’ interests.7
The second premise the majority relies upon to deny candidates standing under the Act is federalism.
We believe that our consideration of doubtful questions of standing to sue under the Voting Rights Act (or any other federal law that treads upon important interests of state and local governments) should be guided by a decent regard for the nature of our federal system. Where Congress acts in a field that is within its constitutional competence, but has not clearly spoken, a federal court should construe the congressional enactment in a manner that recognizes and preserves a healthy balance between state and national power.... The denial of Voting Rights Act standing to unsuccessful candidates helps maintain the fragile relationship between federal and state power and allows state election complaints brought by unsuccessful candidates to be addressed under state laws designed specifically to deal with such complaints.
Ante, at 623-624. The majority’s reasoning, however, overlooks the realities of the Voting Rights Act.
By enacting the Voting Rights Act, Congress intended to intercede in the operation of elections by state and local officials. The Act provides federal remedies to enforce the promises of the 14th and 15th amendments to, and Article I, Section 4, of, the Constitution because the Congress in 1965 — as well as the Congress in 1970, 1975 and 1982 — did not trust the states to remedy racial discrimination within the electoral process. The House Report to the 1965 Act states:
What has been the effect of the 1957, 1960, and 1964 voting rights statutes? Although these laws were intended to supply strong and effective remedies, their enforcement has encountered serious obstacles in various regions of the country. Progress has been painfully *628slow, in part because of the intransigence of state and local officials and repeated delays in the judicial process.
* J}! # * * *
Article I, section 2, and the 17th amendment to the Constitution permit the right of the States to fix the qualification for voting. However, the 15th amendment outlaws voting discrimination, whether accomplished by procedural or substantive means.
* * * * * *
Thus, so long as State laws or practices erecting voting qualifications do not run afoul the 15th amendment or other provisions of the Constitution, they stand undisturbed. But when State power is abused, it is subject to Federal action by Congress as well as by the courts under the 15th amendment.
* * * * * *
There can be no doubt about the present need for Federal legislation to correct widespread violations of the 15th amendment. The prevailing conditions in those areas where the bill will operate offer ample justification for congressional action because there is little basis for supposing that the States and subdivisions affected will themselves remedy the present situation in view of the history of the adoption and administration of the several tests and devices reached by the bill.
The choice of the means to solve a problem within the legitimate concern of the Congress is largely a legislative question.
H.R.Rep. No. 439, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. reprinted in 1965 U.S.CODE CONG. & ADMIN.NEWS 2437, 2440-2441, 2449-2450 (emphasis added).8
As a result of its reliance on federalism, the majority has turned the separation of powers aspect of standing on its head. Roberts is not a “black person in Hawaii” challenging an election “in Maine.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 755, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3326, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984) (per O’Connor, J.). Rather, he is a black candidate from St. Louis challenging an election in the City of St. Louis. He was personally injured by the appellants’ alleged violation of federal law. Congress granted persons in Roberts’ position specific remedies. Yet, by interpreting the Act without regard to the Act’s language, general purpose or legislative history, the majority uses federalism as a vehicle for thwarting congressional will.9
II. THE MERITS
Because I would hold that Roberts does indeed have standing, I find it necessary to discuss the merits of Roberts’ claims. Upon review of the merits, I would affirm the district court for the following reasons.
First, the district court correctly held that the “central inquiry in, and the essence of, a challenge to an electoral structure or practice under [section] 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, is whether, as a result of the challenged practice or structure, a protected group does not have an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect candidates of that group’s choice.” Roberts, 679 F.Supp. at 1529 (citing Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 63, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 2772, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986)). Any *629effort to establish the sociological causes for the phenomenon of over- and undervot-ing in the punch card voting system is as irrelevant to this case as was the effort by appellants in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986), to have the Supreme Court adopt a definition of racially polarized voting that centered on a showing that voting patterns are determined primarily by the voters’ race. Correlation, and not causation, is the relevant inquiry, id. at 63, 106 S.Ct. at 2772 (Brennan, J., joined by Marhsall, Blackmun, and Stevens, JJ., writing for the Court), and there is substantial evidence of a correlation between the punch card voting system as used in St. Louis and blacks having less opportunity than other members of St. Louis’ electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. Roberts, 679 F.Supp. at 1518-19.
Second, the district court’s finding that minority candidates for citywide public office in St. Louis have only had sporadic electoral success is supported by substantial evidence. Blacks in St. Louis have never been able to elect a black mayor, and the only black President of the Board of Aldermen was appointed to office. The fact that a white candidate, who enjoyed significant support among blacks, won election for mayor does not preclude a finding of only sporadic success. Moreover, sporadic electoral success does not foreclose a claim under the Voting Rights Act. See Thornburg, 478 U.S. at 76, 106 S.Ct. at 2779 (“Nothing in the statute or its legislative history prohibited the court from viewing with some caution black candidates’ success in the 1982 election, and from deciding on the basis of all the relevant circumstances to accord greater weight to blacks’ relative lack of success over the course of several recent elections. Consequently, we hold that the district court did not err, as a matter of law, in refusing to treat the fact that some black candidates have succeeded as dispositive of appellees’ § 2 claim.”).
Third, the district court correctly concluded that the section 2 preconditions to suit existed. First, the court’s finding that blacks in St. Louis have the potential to elect a candidate of their choice for citywide election is supported by substantial evidence. To require Roberts to prove that the percentage of blacks living in St. Louis is high enough to necessarily control the outcome of all citywide elections is not consistent with Thornburg. Id. at 50 n. 17, 106 S.Ct. at 2766 n. 17. (“Unless minority voters possess the potential to elect representatives in the absence of the challenged structure or practice, they cannot claim to have been injured by that structure or practice.”) (emphasis in original). Moreover, it is not consistent with the predominant purpose of the Voting Rights Act to enforce the right to vote of any person regardless of race or color. H.R.Rep. No. 439, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. reprinted in 1965 U.S.CODE CONG. & ADMIN.News 2437, 2437. Thus, the district court did not err when it concluded that it “has not been directed to and is unable to find any cases requiring that the minority population actually constitute a majority in the relevant voting unit.” Roberts, 679 F.Supp. at 1530. Furthermore, there is no doubt that substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that legally significant, racially polarized voting exists in St. Louis.
Fourth, considering the totality of the circumstances, the challenged practices resulted in a significant disenfranchisement of black voters. Initially, black citizens of St. Louis presently bear the effects of a pervasive history of official discrimination in St. Louis. For a detailed discussion of official discrimination in St. Louis and throughout the Eighth Circuit states, see Heaney, Busing, Timetables, Goals, and Ratios: Touchstones of Equal Opportunity, 69 Minn.L.Rev. 735, 736-64 (1985). The City has authorized extensive racial segregation in land use and public accommodations. The St. Louis public schools have a long history of segregation and are presently operating under a desegregation plan ordered by this Court. Official discrimination has resulted in almost three times as many black households as white households having incomes below the poverty level and an unemployment rate for blacks *630nearly three times higher than for whites. Secondly, as noted above, St. Louis has a substantial history of racially polarized voting, and its blacks have the potential to elect candidates of their choice to citywide office. Moreover, the campaign in question exhibited substantial overt and subtle racial appeals. Roberts, 679 F.Supp. at 1515. And most importantly, votes cast in “black” wards were much more likely not to be counted than those in “white” wards during the election in question, as well as four previous elections. Finally, the appellants’ justification for not manually recounting discarded ballots — administrative convenience — is tenuous. These circumstances firmly establish that the political process leading to the election of candidates for public office in the City of St. Louis is not equally open to its black citizens as to the rest of its electorate.10

. The trial court, however, did not rely on this fact when it concluded that Roberts had stand*625ing. Rather, it cited Goodloe v. Madison County Bd. of Election Com’rs, 610 F.Supp. 240 (S.D.Miss.1985) for the proposition that Voting Rights Act lawsuits can be brought by unsuccessful candidates.

. Roberts’ Voting Rights Act injury, as a voter, is redressable by the federal courts. Available remedies that would benefit Roberts as a voter include, but are not limited to, a manual recount of all ballots rejected by the tabulating machine, increased voter education in those wards where a high number of ballots are rejected, and increased instruction at the polling place.

. The injury requirement for standing need not be injury in fact. In other words, Roberts does not necessarily have to allege for standing purposes that he would have won the election in question. Roberts lost the opportunity to participate in an election where the right to vote was not abridged by racial discrimination, and loss of opportunity is sufficient injury for standing purposes. See, e.g. Watt v. Energy Action Educational Foundation, 454 U.S. 151, 102 S.Ct. 205, 70 L.Ed.2d 309 (1981) (State of California had standing to assert that the Secretary of the Interior had failed to obey a statutory command to experiment with certain procedures even though the State might receive no benefit at all); University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 280 n. 14, 98 S.Ct. 2733, 2743 n. 14, 57 L.Ed.2d 750 (1978) (non-minority applicant had standing because he was denied the opportunity to compete for all the places in the class even though he had not shown that he would have been admitted but for the preference extended to minority applicants). This is not the case where standing should be denied because plaintiff could not receive any plausible benefit. Henson v. University of Arkansas, 519 F.2d 576 (8th Cir.1975).

. Roberts’ Voting Rights Act injury, as a candidate, is also redressable by the federal courts. Roberts would personally benefit from an injunction requiring a manual recount and a second general election if Roberts is declared the winner of the Democratic primary.

. “Aggrieved person” is a popular term of art in legislative construction. See, e.g., 29 U.S.C. § 626 (Age Discrimination in Employment); 29 U.S.C. § 1854 (Agricultural Worker Protection); 42 U.S.C. § 3613 (Fair Housing).

. Enforcing Congress’ grant of standing to candidates injured by Voting Rights Act violations becomes exceedingly important when the Executive Branch is indifferent to, or even benefits from, such violations. “The polarizing philosophy of the Reagan years affected more than the Administration’s enforcement activities. Its legacy, engrafted upon Reconstruction era stereotypes about black officials, has perpetuated and accentuated a racially skewed reality in which blacks vote but do not govern, at least not in majority white jurisdictions.” Guinier, Keeping the Faith: Black Voters in the Post-Reagan Era, 24 Harv.C.R.-C.L.L.Rev. 393, 414 (1989).

. The importance of having elected officials and candidates come from the various minority communities is obvious. It enhances minority turnout at the polls, provides credible minority leadership to which all leaders can turn, aids minorities in obtaining the benefits of patronage, government contracts and public services, assures that our elected officials come from the pool of all qualified individuals, and legitimates all political activity — popular and unpopular— by promoting the appearance of community representation.

. Senator Hruska, who voted for the 1965 Act but not the 1975 extension, commented that they were a departure
from the general rules of good legislation in that they produced a troublesome precedent of Federal interference in State matters. This departure was tolerated by this Senator, and by at least some others in this body, in the belief that the discrimination which existed at that time was of the proportion that serious remedies were required.
S.Rep. No. 295, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., 70 reprinted in 1975 U.S. CODE CONG. & ADMIN.NEWS 774, 820 (minority view of Senator Roman L. Hruska to S. 1279).

. The majority’s use of standing may be an attempt to disguise a surreptitious ruling on the merits. See Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464, 490, 102 S.Ct. 752, 768, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982) (Brennan, J., joined by Marshall, J., and Blackmun, J., dissenting) ("The opinion of the Court is a stark example of this unfortunate trend of resolving cases at the ‘threshold’ while obscuring the nature of the underlying rights and interests at stake.”).

. The appellants raise several other questions on appeal: whether the district court erred in failing to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over Roberts’ Voting Rights Act claim, whether the district court erred by granting relief even though Roberts failed to seek a timely pre-election determination of his claim, whether the district court was clearly erroneous in finding that the campaign in question was characterized by overt racial appeals, and whether the district court erred in granting a remedy that required the appellants to manually recount all ballots containing an over- or undervote. I find appellants’ remaining questions to be without merit.