Court Opinion

ID: 9467528
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:50:50.935865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:23.350236
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
For the reasons set forth in my dissent to Lodge v. Buxton, 639 F.2d 1358 (5th Cir. 1981), decided today as the lead case in this trilogy of voting dilution challenges, and the observations following, I would affirm the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
My colleagues and I agree that the findings of the district court are not without support, in the record as a whole and are not clearly erroneous. Thomasville Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Thomas County, Ga., supra at 1385 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1981). We part company, however, on the inferences to be drawn from the district court’s discussion of Mobile's effect on the Zimmer test. In a passage cited by the district court, the Supreme Court stated without qualification that “satisfaction of those [Zimmer] criteria is not of itself sufficient proof of such a [discriminatory] purpose.” City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. at 73, 100 S.Ct. at 1503, 64 L.Ed.2d at 62. This conclusion expressly overruled that portion of this court’s decision which indicated that a Zimmer aggregate was conclusive proof of racial motivation. The post-Mobile epilogue of the district court’s opinion demonstrates that the court recognized its new freedom to decide animus based on the entire record, even when the Zimmer factors registered positive discriminatory effect. Accordingly, the district judge proceeded to make his assessment based on the totality of evidence that proof of discriminatory purpose as required by Mobile had not been shown. The judge believed that he was following the requirements of Mobile and this conclusion should not be disturbed.
Moreover, the majority would encourage the district court on remand to consider evidence of depressed socio-economic conditions. I believe the Mobile decision rejects reliance on such evidence, however, and I find the district court’s present opinion to be well-grounded both in fact and in law. I would therefore affirm the district court judgment.