Court Opinion

ID: 9463751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:15:09.733466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:15.995991
License: Public Domain

TUTTLE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
With deference I dissent from the opinion and judgment of the majority. The Court’s opinion is based on the proposition that before the United States Court can devise a form of local government under the preferred single-member district plan, the Court must make specific findings of fact upon which to base its ultimate determination that the existing plan actually works an unconstitutional dilution of votes. I agree wholly with this proposition. My disagreement with the majority here, however, is that I find that not only did the trial court determine that “under the totality of circumstances and in combination with the formal and informal conditions existing in the city, [at-large elections] operate to minimize and dilute the voting strength of black citizens, and to prevent them from participating equally with white citizens in the political process relative to selection of the city commission,” but that the trial court made explicit findings of' fact upon which to base this conclusion.
The Court’s opinion sets out the standard by which we judge the correctness of the district court’s determination of the issue of “dilution” which all agree must be found to exist before the Court may fashion a form of government requiring single-member districts. The trial court fully recognized this requirement where it said: “At-large elections are, of course, not per se racially discriminatory. See Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 [91 S.Ct. 1858, 29 L.Ed.2d 363]. The Supreme Court has held that any plaintiff challenging an at-large election scheme must produce evidence that the political processes used in nomination and election were not equally open to participation; that is, that the minority group had less opportunity than others meaningfully to participate in the political process.”
As stated in the majority opinion, the Supreme Court in East Carroll School Bd. v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 616, 96 S.Ct. 1083, 47 L.Ed.2d 296 (1976) accepted the relevant test as set forth by this Court in Zimmer v. McKeithan, 485 F.2d 1297 (5th Cir. 1973) (en banc) as follows:
“Where a minority can demonstrate [1] lack of access to the process of slating candidates, [2] the unresponsiveness of legislators to their particularized interests, [3] a tenuous state policy underlying the preference for multi-member or at-large districting, or [4] that the existence of past discrimination in general precludes the effective participation in the election system, a strong case [of dilution] is made. Such proof is enhanced by [a] showing of the existence of large districts, [b] majority vote requirements, [c] anti-single shot voting provisions and [d] the lack of provision for at-large candidates running from particular geographic subdistricts. The fact of dilution is established upon proof of the existence of an aggregate of these factors . however ... all these factors need not be proved in order to obtain relief.” 485 F.2d 1297, 1305.
Since my understanding of the degree to which the trial court’s ultimate conclusion was based on specific findings of the kind specified by the Supreme Court as govern*932ing in such a situation differs from that of the majority I consider it essential to quote the entire findings of fact by the trial court in the margin, indicated by footnote 1:1
*933The conclusions of law are also set out in the margin under footnote 2:2
As I read the standards set out above, it requires only a factually undergirded determination by the trial court of the existence of any one of the four criteria in the above formulation to warrant a trial court’s finding that “a strong case [of dilution] is made.” The fact that the court proceeds to say that “such proof is enhanced” by further showings under sub-headings a, b, c, and d in the above formulation does not, it seems to me, withdraw from the trial court the power to make a determination of the existence of “dilution” without any proof dealing with any of these subordinate factors. As I read the trial court’s findings it seems abundantly clear to me that the plaintiffs: (1) offered no proof as to the lack of access to the process of slating candidates. By this I mean to say that no proof was given as to the need of any candidate, black or white, having a particular slate. The elections are by direct primary, so any candidate could offer without any slating requirements at all. As to number 2, the trial court made specific, detailed findings as to the unresponsiveness of legislators to [the minority’s] particularized interests. As to number 3, Texas statute requires at-large voting for the governing bodies of cities of less than 5,000 population. It is open with respect to cities of more than that size. Thus, it could well be said that the State of Texas has a “tenuous state policy underlying the preference for multi-member or at-large districting.” Then, as to number 4, the trial court made *934specific factual determinations that the existence of past discrimination in general precludes the effective participation in the election system.
Since a trial court’s judgment can be affirmed by a determination that it was supported by adequate findings on only one of the criteria mentioned, I think it necessary only to stress the underlying findings that support its determination as to Items 2 and 4.
[2] and [4]: The Unresponsiveness of Legislators to the Particularized Interests of a Minority; and the Fact that the Existence of Past Discrimination in General Precludes the Effective Participation in the Election System. Dealing with these two tests together, since that is the method in which the trial court made its findings of fact, we find that the trial court undertook methodically to meet the standard of fact finding as prescribed in Nevett v. Sides, 5th Cir., 533 F.2d 1361. In findings number 8, the trial court said:
“8. In Lufkin, a continuing history of state and local racial discrimination has restricted the rights of blacks to register, to vote, and to participate in the democratic processes. In this connection, for example, the schools in Lufkin were not desegregated — and only then by order of this court — until 1970; and no black has ever been elected to any office in the City of Lufkin or to any county office in Angelina County, despite the substantial black population in both the city and the county. Further evidence of the continued effect of racial discrimination is demonstrated in the lack of responsiveness on the part of the city to clearly demonstrate needs and concerns of the black community of Lufkin. Thus, despite substantial efforts by the black community to obtain black policemen in the City of Lufkin, there are still no black policemen now employed by the City, nor are there any black firemen, or any appreciable number of black employees in any department within the City Government. Furthermore, it was not until 1970 that a black citizen was ever appointed by the city to any of the various boards and commissions created by the City Commission; and at this time, only two blacks have ever been appointed to any of such boards or commissions. When the black community conceived a particularized need for assistance by the city in dealing with the severe shortages of public housing, and adequate housing for black citizens, it was rebuffed by the City Commission. Similarly, the black community sought City Commission support for the establishment of a human relations commission, and it was unsuccessful. All of these factors lead the Court to conclude that the City Commission of the City of Lufkin has been, and continues to be, largely unresponsive to the needs and interests of the black community of Lufkin.”
In light of these findings, it is difficult for me to understand the purpose of the majority in deciding that the case should be remanded to the district court for further findings of fact. The findings here are completely at variance from those by the trial court in Nevett v. Sides, supra. There the trial court failed to resolve the underlying issues either one way or the other in most instances, but concluded that “the various indicia that have been prescribed by the appellate courts are not helpful one way or the other in this case and it ends up with this Court having to decide under the basic standards, does the present system, regardless of purpose, operate to minimize or cancel the voting strength of the blacks in the City of Fairfield. . . This Court felt it necessary to send the case back to the trial court to determine what it found with respect to the “indicia of dilution stated in Zimmer and other cases”. Reference to the appendix to the Nevett opinion, 533 F.2d at 1366, will show that none of the findings of the trial court as to any of the elements constituting the indicia mentioned in Zimmer was resolved before the trial court arrived at its final conclusion.
Moreover, the trial court’s findings number 9 further documented its conclusion with respect to the two indicia with which *935we are here concerned. This finding, already quoted above, need not be repeated to make ft plain that the trial court made findings sufficient to bolster its final conclusion “that plaintiffs have established that at-large elections in Lufkin, under the totality of circumstances and in combination with the formal and informal conditions existing in the city, operate to minimize and dilute the voting strength of black citizens, and to prevent them from participating equally with the white citizens in the political process relative to selection of the city commission.”

Subsidiary Proof to Support Findings on Indicia [2] and [4]:

As will be noted from the enumeration of the requirements in Zimmer, supra, the courts have stated that although “a strong case is made” upon a finding in favor of a minority on any of the indicia numbers one through four, it is stated that “such proof is enhanced by a showing of the existence of” [a] large districts, [b] majority vote requirements, [c] anti-single shot voting provisions, and [d] the lack of provision for at-large candidates running for particular geographical sub-districts:
[a] As to whether a city-wide district, such as present in Lufkin here, is a “large” district, we need only point to the fact that it has a population in excess of 23,000, whereas the at-large district in Zimmer contains some 13,000.
[b] It is, of course, undisputed here that the winner in the direct primary in a Lufkin vote had to obtain a majority, rather than a plurality, in order to be elected. It was this requirement that prevented the one black potential candidate Tims from being elected in the manner described by the trial court’s findings.
[c] There is here present an anti-single shot voting provision, in that each candidate announces for election for a particular slot and whether or not he withholds his vote for candidates for other slots in no way enhances the likelihood of the one person he wishes to vote for being elected.
[d] The Lufkin system does provide that the at-large candidates run from particular geographical sub-districts. This is a factor that to some extent, at least, favors the defendants.
We are instructed that “the fact of dilution is established upon proof of the existence of an aggregate of these factors. . All these factors need not be proved in order to obtain relief.” Then, it is clear that the aggregation of the factors is the duty of the trial court. It is clearly not necessary that the trial court make a finding with respect to every contention made by the parties, nor is it required that the trial court make a specific finding of fact touching on every conflicting bit of evidence in the record. As noted by the majority opinion, this Court has recently stated in Paige v. Gray, 538 F.2d 1108, 1111 (5th Cir. 1976) that “the weighing of these factors is ordinarily a trial court function which we will not undertake initially unless the record is so clear as to permit of only one resolution.”
Finally, I am quite concerned with one statement of the majority opinion dealing with the general proposition of proof of lack of governmental responsiveness resulting solely from “hiring disparities,” when the disparities dealt with are as shocking as those that appear on this record. The majority says: “There is some question as to whether hiring disparities reflect a lack of governmental responsiveness at all if the all white city employees see to it that the black community receives equal city services. There are after all other remedies for discrimination in hiring by the city. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a).” I cannot believe that proof that a city government, with a population of approximately 30% black, has no more than a handful of black city employees would not be a monumental example of lack of responsiveness to the specialized needs of the minority. I cannot believe that a black citizen must proceed under the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, rather than the normal process of using the ballot box, properly managed, to put an end to *936such blatant racially exclusionary government.
In my judgment, the trial court’s findings of fact amply supported its conclusion. This conclusion fits the classical standard required to show dilution.
I would AFFIRM.

. “1. The City of Lufkin, Texas, is organized as a ‘Home Rule’ city under the statutes of the State of Texas.
2. The plaintiffs, Kirkley David et al., are black citizens of the United States and residents and registered voters in the City of Lufkin who assert that the existing scheme for election of city officials unconstitutionally dilutes their right to vote.
3. The defendants comprise the City Commission of the City of Lufkin. As such, they constitute the legislative governing body of the City of Lufkin.
4. The City Commission is composed of seven members, a mayor and six commissioners; four of the commissioners must reside in designated wards within the city. All commissioners, however, run in designated places and are voted on by all eligible voters within the city. They must receive a majority of votes, in order to be elected. The existing ‘ward’ system has never resulted in the election of a resident of the city’s black ghetto area, whether black or white, and does little to provide representation of the interests of the residents of the black ghetto on the City Commission of Lufkin. Indeed, the modified ‘ward’ systems in Lufkin does not always provide geographical representation, for the system has resulted in the election of commissioners whose residences appear to be concentrated in small pockets. Commissioner Rich continues to serve as a member of the City Commission, although he no longer lives within the ward in which he was required to reside at the time he ran for office, with the result that no member of the Commission resides in ward 3.
5. According to the 1970 census, the total population of the City of Lufkin was 2,049, (sic) of whom 6,604 were black. Although a significant portion of the population of the City of Lufkin is black, no black has ever served on the City Commission of the City of Lufkin. As reflected by Plaintiff’s Exhibit 5, the black population is heavily concentrated in the northern portion of Lufkin. Of the census enumeration districts comprising the City of Lufkin, 85% of the city’s black population is located within six enumeration districts in the northern part of Lufkin. This black ghetto area, more than any other area within the city, is characterized by dilapidated housing, poor enforcement of the city building codes, and, despite recent efforts by the city to upgrade the streets in the area, inferior streets.
6. In 1971, Inez Tims, a long time black resident of the City of Lufkin and a black community leader, became the first black candidate for city council in the history of Lufkin. He obtained a plurality of the votes in the first election, leading two white opponents; however, under the city’s existing election scheme, he was required to obtain a majority and hence forced into a runoff election. The fact that Inez Tims was a black received wide public attention, and his picture appeared twice in news stories on the front page of the Lufkin paper before the runoff election. Tims was defeated in the runoff by his white opponent. This runoff election caused the largest voter turnout in the history of the City of Lufkin. The turnout in the runoff was significantly greater than the first election, and was achieved despite the fact there was only the single contested race between Tims and his white opponent. According to an actual count, 1,650 black citizens went to the polls in the runoff election. Tims received 1,653 votes. The court concludes from a variety of factors, including the undisputed fact that Tims had been solicited by the black community to run for office, his long time leadership within the black community, and a decline in interest in city politics in the black community following his defeat, that Tims received virtual total support from the black voters and a negligible number of white votes. The court further concludes that it was Tims’ presence on the ballot, pitted against the white opponent, that produced a very heavy turnout of white voters in the runoff.
7. The court finds that the majority-place system, as utilized by the City of Lufkin, operates to minimize the voting strength of the black residents, and, coupled with the at-large system, tends to create a racial polarization in voting.
8. In Lufkin, a continuing history of state and local racial discrimination has restricted the rights of blacks to register, to vote, and to participate in the democratic processes. In this connection, for example, the schools in Lufkin were not desegregated — and only then by order of this court — until 1970; and no black has ever been elected to any office in the City of Lufkin or to any county office in Angelina County, despite the substantial black population in both the city and the county. Further evidence of the continued effect of racial discrimination is demonstrated in the lack of responsiveness on the part of the city to clearly demonstrate needs and concerns of the black community of Lufkin. Thus, despite substantial efforts by the black community to obtain black policemen in the City of Lufkin, there are still no black policemen now employed by the City, nor are there any black firemen, or any appreciable number of black employees in any department within the City Government. Furthermore, it was not until 1970 that a black citizen was ever appointed by the city to any of the various boards and commissions created by the City Commission; and at this time, only two blacks have ever been appointed to any of such boards or commissions. When the black *933community conceived a particularized need for assistance by the city in dealing with the severe shortages of public housing, and adequate housing for black citizens, it was rebuffed by the City Commission. Similarly, the black community sought City Commission support for the establishment of a human relations commission, and it was unsuccessful. All of these factors lead the Court to conclude that the City Commission of the City of Lufkin has been, and continues to be, largely unresponsive to the needs and interests of the black community of Lufkin.
9. Dr. Charles Cottrell, a recognized expert in the field testified, without contradiction, that the existing electoral system in Lufkin effectively precluded meaningful participation by black citizens in the electoral politics of the city. This conclusion is amply confirmed by plaintiffs’ testimonial and documentary evidence; and the court concludes that the present at-large election scheme of the City of Lufkin operates to minimize and cancel out the black voting strength in the city. More particularly, members of the black minority of the city are deprived of the opportunity meaningfully to run for a position on the Commission of the City of Lufkin, and otherwise to have a meaningful impact upon the city elections. Thus, the existing electoral scheme relegates black voters to permanent minority status within the city. Moreover, as previously noted, the majority-place system exacerbates this minimization of black voting strength.
10. It is feasible to devise a single member district plan for election of City Commissioners in the City of Lufkin, under which plan, rights of the plaintiffs would not be violated.”

. “1. This action arises under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This court has jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1343, it being a suit for declaratory and injunctive relief.
2. At-large elections are, of course, not per se racially discriminatory. See Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 [91 S.Ct. 1858, 29 L.Ed.2d 363], The Supreme Court has held that any plaintiff challenging an at-large election scheme must produce evidence that the political processes used in nomination and election were not equally open to participation; that is, that the minority group had less opportunity than others meaningfully to participate in the political processes. The court finds here that the plaintiffs have met this burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence. White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 [93 S.Ct. 2332, 37 L.Ed.2d 314] (1973). For, it is clear that plaintiffs have established that at-large elections in Lufkin, under the totality of circumstances and in combination with the formal and informal conditions existing in the city, operate to minimize and dilute the voting strength of black citizens, and to prevent them from participating equally with white citizens in the political process relative to selection of the City Commission. The lack of adequate responsiveness on the part of the city government to the needs of the black community is the result of such at-large elections.
3. The plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments are denied under the present at-large electoral system.
4. It is appropriate to implement a single-member district plan of representation for the election of the City Commission of the City of Lufkin; and such plan should be adopted and implemented before the 1975 city elections.”