From the desk of Debbie Crownoverr MR. CECIL BAILEY, PRESIDENT MR. THOMAS BROUGHTON. VICE PRESIDENT (dou nli^ tf^oarcl Education ROOM 300. PULASKI COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 201 S. BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 TELEPHONE 372-7800 Ai" DR. GEORGE A. McCRARY MR. E. GRAINGER WILLIAMS DR. MARTIN ZOLDESSY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD Debbie Crownover > MEMO TO: Members, Pulaski County lard of Education RECEIVED FROM: DATE: Ids. Debbie Crovmover,^Secretary December 21, 1992 DEC 2 2 1992 SUBJECT: Minutes of 12/15/92 2nd Quarterly Meeting Office of Desegregation Monitoring Enclosed, please find the following: 1. 2. Minutes from the 12/15/92 regular second quarterly meeting Copy of Order to Pulaski County Treasurer concerning CD investment Please review the minutes and let me know if you feel changes need to be made prior to the next meeting. Special Called Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, December 29, I MMZ- ar I ( Ml p M T-n -Pl ____________________ z<, 1992, at 1:00 P.M. in the 3rd floor conferenc: room, 201 So. Broadway, L.R. ihis meeting was scheduled for the purpose of the Board to choose a proposal from those presented, to formally present to Judge Susan Webber Wright for her consider- atim to set the new boundaries of the Little Rock School District school board member election zones. Please let me know in advance of this meeting if you will be unable MEIRRY CHRISTMAS to you all, and I'll see you on the 29th. to attend. cc: Larry Vaught, P.C. Attorney Chris Heller, Attorney, LRSD John Walker, Attorney Jim McKenzie, Metroplan 7DATE 12/15 2nd Qtr. County Board 09 of Education _________________IP ________________________________ KINO or MIKTIWa ,T.Mr,_Cccil Iki.i.ley, ITe.y. 201 So. Broadway, Ste. 300 Little Rock, AR PAGE_ 1 Mr. Cecil Bailey__ Dr. George.McCrary, Klember -Vice Pxcs.___ MKM ahskn , None Mr. Thnnwff RTOfrp.hton (part) Mr. Grainger Mi 11 jams. Member Dr. Martin Zolde.s.sy, Member__ OTHEnS PRESENT. Mr, T .A i Mr. Chris Heller SD --Cynthia. Howell.,. Ark^Democrat^Gazext. Dehhip " . others: Crnwnnvpr, RnarH .Spprpt-flry __ See attached sign-in sheet INDEX NOTATIONS MINUTES Board of Education met, for its regular second quarterly meet- ing of the 1992/93 school year, on Tuesday, December 15, 1992, at 1:00 o.m. in the 3rd floor conference room of the Pulaski County Administration Bldg. All members were present to conduct business and Mr. President, called the meeting to order. Cecil Bailey, the Board Minutes of the 9/15 regular first quarterly meeting and of the 10/6 and 11/6 special called meetings were previously mailed to each Board Member for Copies of the minutes from the 11/30 and 12/7 public hearings ers for review. review. . ---------od were in their fold- Mr. Bailey asked for a motion to accept the minutes Mr. Williams so moved to ... - seconded the motion. --------- as approved. approve the minutes of all five meetings. Mr. Broughton It was voted and passed unanimously. Call to Order Minutes approved: 9/15, 10/6 11/6, 11/3 12/7/92 After some discussion Mr. Bailey asked for
1 as to the current balances in the County Common School Fund, a motion to approve the distribution of the 2nd quarter allotment of State Apportionment money to the school districts. . ,, J -- ....... Ms. Crownover An Board the budgeted $3.00 per ADM had been reduced by the State Dent .s9 Qft Fiflr AHM ____________________T______T __________ . . , _ . - H no r- pel nyu naa oeen reouced by the State Dept, to $2.98 per ADM for the current school year. She said she would adjust to balance with the actual distribution at the June, 1993 distribution. State App. allocation $41,935.50 distribute the $41,935.50 to the schools as soon as the allotment is received from the state funds. ... Mr. Broughton seconded the motion. It was voted and approved. Next, feUey asked for a motion to approve the distribution of $2.00 per ADM AT* Sill K / H (Ml T mm ny-,,n__________r'i_____. ... . or $111,828.00 from the County Common School Fund to the school districts, was asked whether or not the funds were available before the end of the Crownover said that a little over $6,000.00 would still be the distribution. It year. Ms. seconded the motion. ----- in the account after Mr. Williams moved to distribute the money now. Mr. Broughton :. It was voted and unanimously approved. The prepared financial statement (as of 11/31/92) showed Cf. ZT ------------------------------- 3 current balance of <17 O9A County Common School Fund (with today's distributions), and _^7_^026.88 in the Special limd County Board of Education. These two accounts will cashed CD's plus interest at the end of December
$300,000.00 and $200,000.00 respectively. ------------------ These two accounts will Mr. Bailey discussed with the Board the status of the $500,000.00 invested into CD s. The County Treasurer is to cash them in and deposit the funds plus interest into the proper accounts at maturity. After some discussion, Mr. Broughton steo- npH Tn na Proc 4 z-1 f- S v-. n____ . i . . __ ped in as President in order for Mr. Bailey to make a motion, invest $500,000.00 as follows: He moved to re- $300,000.00 from the County Comnon School Fund $200,000.00 from the Special Fund, County Board of Education invested, by the Pulaski County Treasurer, Pat Tedford for the PiJaski County Board of Education, in 90-day CD's or T-Bills, whichever would yield the highest interest. >-- At maturity, the Treasurer is to deposit the ^oi^ts invested and interest earned back into the respective accounts. Ul'l I I 1 mmi-i X. 1 * Williams seconded the motion. Mr. It was voted and approved and Mr. Bailey resumed his position as President for the duration of the meeting. Cnty. Cmn. School Fnd $111,828.0( Financial statement Reinvest $500,000.0(DATE, 12/15 i_92 PAGE. 2 BIND OP MIKTIND PNiaiDINO OPPICBR OTHERS PRESENTi. INDEX NOTATIONS Second Quarterly Meeting, County Board of Education (Continued) Mr. Bailey then asked Ms. Crownover to report on the GED testing for 1992. With statistics in through 12/9/92, the following figures were noted for this test center (#0601): the GED testing for 1992 Total pre-tested---------------------- (31% of those 284 scheduled) Total taking actual test--------- Total passing actual test------- 87 75 47 or 63% Total falling actual test---------------------------28 or 37% The Board discussed the "no-shows" of those scheduled to take the laxoL-Lioocu une nu-snows oi tnose scneOuled pre-test. Ms. Crownover said it is quite a problem in scheduling, because of limited testing days and limited seating space. F''- - - * day to make up for the no-shows. up on She said she already over-books" each pre-test She felt one reason some don't bother to show their scheduled day is because Arkansas doesn't charge for any part of the testing, so they don't have anything to lose when they don't show up. All those who are scheduled for the actual test have already taken and passed the 1 fsTw x* 1.1 !_ uAiXV4. die pre test so 1UU% of them show up. No action was required by the Board on this subject. The next item on the agenda was for the Board to discuss the current Little Rock School District election zone lawsuit. Tlie Board had said, in the last public hearing, that they would not be making a decision on which proposal to present IlinOQ ClIC'OT-i LTnkkr, T.7w-4 *- _ _ __1 ~ Judge Susan Webber Wright, at this regular meeting. to Pulaski County Attorney, Mr. Larry Vaught, reminded the Board that all parties involved, including Mr. Walker, had agreed to the 1986 Federal Court order assigned the current LRSD election zone boundaries. The zones, at that time comported with the Voting Rights Act. Mr. Heller informed the Board that, even though the Board discussed allowing Mr. Walker more time to prepare a compromise proposal, the LRSD was not interested in any compromise that would be based on rac Mr. Heller asked the Board to pick one of Metroplan's proposals and present it to Judge Wright as quickly as possible, so the postponed election could be reschedule He said that April and May of 1993 would be a crutial time for LRSD because of budgeting, so they would like to have the election as soon as possible. that GED test update LRSD election zone discussion Vaught/ Heller on rac :. 1. Mr. Vaught warned the Board that if they make race a factor in their choice t" nmr r.fi 1 1 .J . ii. they will run the risk of Judge Wright telling them they did not do what she askec. Since there has been no prior finding of discrimination with regard to the school] election, race should not be considered, just the one-man/one-vote concept. Mr. Vaught told the Board Judge Wright would probably hold a hearing after the proposal was presented to her, and that, at that time, Mr. Walker could submit hi' proposal to her if he wished to do so. Mr. Heller said he felt Judge Wright woulc expedite her ruling so the election could be underway. After more discussion, the Board President set a Special Called meeting for Tues. December 29, 1992, at 1:00 p.m. for the purpose of the Board to choose a proposal of new election zones to present to Judge Wright. Mr. Bailey will meet with Mr. Nagel prior to that date and get copies of any compromised changes in Mr. Walker's proposal, to the Board members prior to the 12/29 meeting. Special Called meeting 12/29 to choose proposalDATE 12/15 .9^ HINO or UKIYIM4 M PAGE. HRvatoiNO orrictn 3 J OTHER* PRESENTt INDEX NOTATIONS Second Quarterly Meeting, County Board of Education (Continued) Next, Ms. Crownover told the Board she would have 1992 Code of Ethics forms pared for each member to review and sign, at the 12/29 meeting. preparea tor As soon as they sign their forms, Ms. Crownover will notarize their signature and file the forms with the County Clerk after January 1, 1993 and before January 31, 1993. Code of Ethics After the Special Called meeting of 12/29/92, the next regular third quarterly meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 16, 1993, at 1:00 p.m. There being no other business to discuss, Mr. Broughton made a motion to adjourn tthhee mmeeeettiinngg.. Dr. McCrary seconded the motion and the meeting stood adjourned. PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION Mr. Cecil Bailey, President Ms. Debbie Crownover, Secretary December 21, 1992 Date Next reg. meeting 3/16/93 f^ufaiLi Cdoun iSoaJ of ^ducation MR. CECIL BAILEY. PRESIDENT MR. THOMAS BROUGHTON. VICE PRESIDENT ROOM 300. PULASKI COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 201 S. BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 TELEPHONE 372-7800 MEMO DR. GEORGE A. McCRARY MR. E. GRAINGER WILLIAMS DR. MARTIN ZOLDESSY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD Debbie Crownover TO: Members, Pulaski County Board of Education FROM: Ms. Debbie Cro\mover< Secretary SUBJECT: DATE: Minutes of the 12/29/92 Special Called Meeting/ Code of Ethics/ Metroplan-4 Proposal Submitted to Judge Wright January 6, 1993 Enclosed is your copy of the minutes from the Special Called Meeting of 9Q Tom. Please review them and let me know if you see any changes that need to be made. December 29, 1992. Pulaski County Attorney, Mr. Larry Vaught, has subnitted the proposal to Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright this 6th day of January, 1993. .(See attached) Please let me know if you have any questions concerning this matter, informed as to the Board's next step. I will keep you Also enclosed is your copy of your recorded Code of Ethics form. T copy of this with your records in this office should you ever need another I also have a copy. cc: minutes only Mr. Larry Vaught, Pulaski County Attorney Mr. Chris Heller, Attorney, LRSD Mr. Jolin Walker, Attorney \/llrs. Ann Brown, ODM Mr. Jim McKenzie, Metroplan RECESVED JAN 8 1993 Office of Desegregation MonitoringDATE. 12/29/ ,a_92 Special Called 201 So. Broadway Suite 300 Meeting, County _________ Bd. of Education L.R., AR 72201 KINO OP HCKTIN4 "1 MEMBER* rREENTMr. Cecil Bailey^ Prp tfc, Thomas Broughton Vice Pre: Dr. George McCrary, Member __Mr. Grai nger Wi11i aws_________ Dr. Martin Zoldessy--------- .q .q WHCNC HILO MEMBERS ABSENT_______ PAGE___L Mr. Cecil Bailey PNiaiDiNO OPFicin Mr. Tarry Vaught, Attorney,? Mr. John Walker, At-tnmpy ___________ iir. Chris Heller. Attorney, LRSD______ Mrs, Ann Brown, PPM OTHERS PRESENT] Cyiitliia ifowell
Aik. DeiiiucraL-Gazetcs Channel 4-Eyewitness News Ms. Debbie Crownover, Secretary OTHERS: ~ ' See attached MINUTES pie Pulaski County Board of Education met in a Special Called Meeting. Tuesdav December 29, 1992, at 1:00 P.M. in the office boardroom. The purpose of the mating was for the Board to make their decision on which presented proposal of uiicj-x UCI.XOXUU uii wiixcn presenceu proposal, new election zones for the Little Rock School District, to present to Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright. All members were present to conduct business, called the meeting to order. Mr. Bailey, the Board President, Mr. Bailey gave the Board some extra time to study a new proposal (Walker-4) that was received earlier that morning. The new Walker-4 proposal had 3 predominantly INDEX NOTATIONS Call to Order black zones, 4 predominently white zones, all incumbents were within the boundarie
of a separate zone, and the geographically. zones were numbered similarly to the current zones. Mr. Bailey then read the Federal court mandates ordered by Judge Wright rir. Ddrxey Luen leau cne reoerai .Judge Wright. He also _ listed the criteria the Board set for Metroplan when they were requested to studv m irronf' TDCH a1 _________3 ____i_____ t f \ ' the current LRSD election zones and submit a proposal(s) if the current found to be out of compliance with the one-man/one-vote concept. ones were A discussion followed about the various proposals that were submitted. If Pro- Summary Federal Court Orde & eight proposals posal Walker 4 or any one of the four Metroplan proposals is chosen, the reschedul id l^ction would be for zones 2 & 4 only, as would have been the case had the repula L992 election for the LRSD not been postponed. Mr. Thomas Broughton made a motion for the Board to submit the Walker-4 proposal to Judge Wright for approval. Mr. Bailey asked for a second to the motion, was made
the motion died. Walker-4 motion die None Mr. Grainger Williams made a motion for the Board to submit both Walker-4 and 1 Metroplan-4 proposals to Judge Wright. Dr. McCrary seconded the motion. The Boan asked Mr. Vaught if presenting two proposals to Judge Wright would be acceptable , practice. Mr. Vaught said the order was somewhat unusual because there weren't i many guidelines added. He said there was nothing in the Order that would point to the fact that Judge Wright anticipated more than one proposal would be submitted to her
however, neither was that action prohibited. would be a call for the Board to make. Mr. Broughton said he felt strongly that the Board should make their decision and present only one proposal, even if it was not one he favored, because he felt that was the Board's job and that the Board should not ask Judge Wright to make up their minds for them. Walker-4 & Metro.-4 combomotion fai. Mr. Vaught said it A vote' was called. The motion failed 3 to 2. Williams and Dr. McCrary, voting voted no to break the tie. Voting for the motion was Mr. no was Dr. Zoldessy and Mr. Broughton. Mr. Baileyi DATE. 12/29/ ,9_92 PAGE_ 2 I KIND OF MEETINa MCMDCRS FRE8CNT WHERE HELD MEMSCRS ABSENT _ FRESiOINO OFFICER OTHERS PRESENTi Special Called Ifeeting, Pulaski County Board of Education (continued) Dr. Zoldessy then made a motion to present the Metroplan-4 proposal to Judge Wright. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. The motion passed 3 to 1. Voting were Dr. Zoldessy, Mr. Williams and Dr. McCrary. Mr. Broughton cast the no vote. Mr. Bailey asked Mr. Vaught to prepare the necessary documents to present to Judge Wright. Mr. McKenzie said metroplan would draw up a packet of their proposal-4 to present to Judge Wright. As soon as Mr. Vaught gets the material from Metroplan, he and Mr. Bailey will meet to go over the presentation material. Mr. Bailey reminded the Board to review their Code of Ethics form, which were in their folders, and sign them, if approved, and submit to Ms. Crownover. She will notarize them and file them with the Pulaski County Clerk after January 1, 1993, and before January 31, 1993. The President asked for a motion to adjourn. Dr. Zoldessy so moved, seconded by Mr. Broughton. It was voted and approved and the meeting stood adjourned. PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION Mr. Cecil Bailey, President Ms. Debbie Crownover, Secretary Date January 5, 1993 INDEX NOTATIONS ietroplan-4 notion aasses Code of Ethics. JAN-,7-93 THU 14:35 PUL. CO. ASSESSOR FAX NO. 5013776009 P.Ol * { IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAliSAS !/ WESTERN DIVISION FILED H. Ow-ur InT
au I.TTiI.?: ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT : i! O', JAN ! 3 : L H. bUL-N i o, CI. lPi'K PLAINTIFF V NO.
LR-C-82-866 PUI.ASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1., et al. I S' DEFENDANT,S MI^S. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENOl^S KATHERINE W, KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS KJLASKI._CQUNTY board of EDUCATION'S PLAN FOR KL'MCTION.. ZONES__TN THE ijlTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST'RTCT The Pulaski County Board of Education, through the Pulaski County Attorney, submits the following pursuant to the order of the Court dated September 24, 1992, and Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-607
1. The Court's order instructs the Pulaski County Board of Education to "determine whether the zones are out of compliance with the 'one man - one vote' principle. and if they are [to] I
rezone the Little Rock School District accordingly." 2. The Board has determined that the zones are out of compliance with the one man - one vote principle as set forth in the Analysis of Little Rock School District's School Election Zones, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. On December 29, 1992, the Board adopted the proposed Little Rock School District Election District as set forth in Exhibit A in which the zone vary from 0.59' Ct to 3.G4% from the ideal. WHjKREFORE , the Pulaski County Board of Education has compliedJAN- 7-93 THU 14:36 PUL, CO. ASSESSOR FAX NO. 5013776009 P. 02 with the order of the Court, the Court
the Board further and it prays the plan be approved by prays it be dismissed from this case. Respectfully Submitted, S-L larry d? I VAUGHU PULASKI COUNTY ATTORNEY 201 So. Broadway, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR (501) 377-6285 72201 Arkansa
Bar No. 79129 SBRJTFICATE of srrviqe copy of the f^regoi^ng ^d^ocumeirt hT<-^be^^ correct to Mr. Christopher Viler Commercial Building, 400 West Capitol Lit?? 2000 First MMrr.. John Walker, .ioi-m w XrT ^pitol, Little Rock, AR 72201 and AR John walker, oJnO HthHiWa. .W.AAL_K_E_R__ _dpa ya ' 1771 Rock, 72206 on thiis P.A. Larry o. Vauglit Analysis of Little Rock School Board Election Zdhel Pulaski County Board of Education METKOFLAN January 1993METROPLAN. A COUNCIL OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS January 5, 1993 Mr. Cecil Bailey, President Pulaski County Board of Education Room 300, Pulaski County Administration Bldg. 201 S. Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Mr. Bailey: At the request of Pulaski County Judge Buddy Villines, Metroplan has assisted the Pulaski County Board of Education in analyzing the election districts of the Little Rock School Board. Enclosed is our final report. The current election districts were analyzed and six of the seven were foimd to be out of compliance with the "one man, one vote" standard of plus or minus five percent from the mean. The current districts are mapped over a base of election precincts and a summary table is provided herein. In addition, we have included two maps of the alternative alignment the Board selected, as well as a summary table for that alternative. The first map is over a street base and the second map is over the voting precinct base. Both maps show the proposed zones in color and the existing boundaries with a heavy black line so that it is easy to identify the changes. It has been a pleasure working with the Board and with your very competent staff. If Metroplan may be of further assistance in this matter, pleasure feel free to call on us. Sincerely yours, im Ix^utive Director McKenzie Heritage West Building 201 East Markham Suite 450 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 372-3300 Election District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 School District Total Ideal CURRENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ELECTION ZONE BOUNDARIES Total Population 20,901 Population Variance -3,910 Percent Variance -15.76% Total White Population 3,194 Total Black Population 17,629 Percent Black Pop. 84.35% Total Other Population 78 Percent Other Pop. 0.37% 20/15 24,989 31,057 30,810 22,382 23,120 173,674 24811 -4,396 -17.72% 4,906 15,306 74.97% 203 0.99% 178 6,246 5,999 -2/29 -1,691 0.72% 22,107 2,529 10.12% 353 1.41% 25.18% 24.18% -9.79% -6.81% 28,967 22,974 15,582 15,159 112,889 Table prepared by Metroplan using 1990 U.S. Census data. November, 1992 1,550 7,346 6,390 7,688 58/38 I - 4.99% 23.84% 28.55% 33.25% 33.65% 540 490 410 273 2,347 1.74% 1.59% 1.83% 1.18% 1.35%Election District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 School District Total Ideal RECOMMENDED SCHOOL DISTRICT ELECTION ZONE BOUNDARIES Total Population 25,533 Population Variance 722 Percent Variance 2.91% 25,764 24,578 24,216 24/56 24,663 24/64 173,674 24,811 953 -233 -595 -355 -148 -347 3.84% -0,94% -2.40% -1.43% -0.59% -1.40% Total White Total Black Percent Total Other Percent Population 5,018 Population 20,380 Black Pop. 79.82% Population 135 Other Pop. 0.53% 10,084 15,300 59.39% 380 1.47% 23,161 22,518 19,325 15,550 17,233 112,889 Table prepared by Metroplan using 1990 U.S. Census data. November, 1992 1,112 1,239 4,681 8,767 6,959 58/38 4.52% 5.12% 19.14% 35.55% 28.45% 33.65% 305 459 450 346 272 2,347 1.24% 1.90% 1.84% 1.40% 1.11% 1.35%JAN- 7-93 THU 14:35 - PUL, CO. ASSESSOR FAX NO, 5013776009 P. 01 U' S' i ^1? I R ' is L IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT i-xyir.-<i?i s
'.'.: 4!- EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAliSAS WESTERN DIVISION
au I ': j I i,.TTrr.,e rock school district CAi-ft n.E>nLi\ M I 3, Ci..L-F(|( PLAlNTlFF NO.
LR-C-82-8b6 OCP.Ci
-: 7K PUJASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT HO. 1., et al. I I DEFENDANT,S MRS. LORENE JOSilL'A, et al. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS I'-HI^^..CQyiflY . BOARD OF EilUCATION 'S PI,AN FOR I'.MCT.1.ON.. ZONEg_JW THE I,ITTLE_ ROCK SCllOQT. DISl'RTCT The Pulasxi County Board of Education, through the Pulaski County Attorney, submits the following pursuant to the order of the J Court dated September 24, 1992, and Ark. 1. Code Ann. 6-13-607: The Court's order instructs the Pulaski County Board of Education to H determine whether the zones are out of compliance with the ' one man one vote' principle. and if they are [to] rezone che Little Rock School District accordingly. H 2. The Board has determined that the zones are out of compliance with the one man - one vote principle as set forth in the Analysis of Little Rock School District's School Election Zones, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. On December 29, 1992, the Board adopted the proposed Little Rock School District Election District as set forth in Exhibit A in which the zones vary from 0.59% to 3.84% from the ideal. WHEREJORE, the Pulaski County Board of Education has complin 1 I IJAN- 7-93 THU 14:36 PUL, CO. ASSESSOR FAX NO. 5013776009 P. 02 with the order of the Court, the Court
the Board further and it prays the plan be approved by prays it be dismissed from this Case. Respectfully Submitted, ) LAK ay D. VAUGHuT PULASKI COUNTY ATTORNEY 201 So. Broadway, Little Rock, AR (501) 377-6285 Suite 400 72201 Arkansas Bar No. 79129 QERTXFIQATE QF_SERVice I, Larry D, Vaught, dvj iierer copyjjf the foregoing document ha
tt . Christopher Heller, do hereby certify that to Mr. Commercial Building, 400 West Capitol, Mr. John Walker, JOHN W. WALKER P A AR 72206 on thi.s day of Janua , - a true and correct been served by regular U.S Friday, eldredge & clark, Rock, AR ma i 1 2000 First 72201 and ^^23 Broadway, Little Rock, day of January, 1993, Larry DD. Valuigghhtt P. 03 AUTOMATIC COVER SHEET DATE
JAN- 7-93 THU 14:36 TO
FAX It
93710100 FROM I I PUL. CO. ASSESSOR FAX #
5013776009 03 PAGES WERE SENT (INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE) B* X X )K i * :tt [ * * DATE START SENDER JAN- 1 14:31 5013776009 TRANSACTION REPORT RX TIME PAGES TYPE P.Ol JAN- 7-93 THU 14:33 NOTE 1'36" 3 RECEIVE OK X X % )K X )K XiSsi J Submitted: January 10, 1995 Before RICHARD S. Filed: June 5, 1995 ARNOLD, Chief Judge, HEANEY, Judge, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. Senior Circuit RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge. Two appeals' involving the Little Rock School District (LRSD) are consolidated for our review. In the first case. African- American voters^ appeal the District Court's^ order dismissing their claim under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 2, as amended. 42 U.S.C. 1973, against LRSD. In the second case, the Joshua Intervenors appeal the District Court's August 10, granting LRSD's motion to close Ish Incentive School, both cases. 1994 , order We affirm in I. We review first Charles's claim that the LRSD's election-zone plan adopted by the Pulaski County Board of Education (PCBE) and initially. three appeals were consolidated. In the third case, the Joshua Intervenors appealed the District Court's order of September 27, 1994, rejecting the present site of Stephens School as a possible location of the new Stephens Interdistrict School. That appeal has been dismissed by agreement of the parties. _______ Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. Little 1, No. 93-3592 (Sth Cir. Jan. 19, 1995) (per curiam). Diane Davis, ^Plaintiffs Dale Charles, Robert L. Brown, Sr., Gwen Hervey Jackson, and Raymond Frazier, are African-American residents of Little Rock who live within the Little Rock School District. ................... We shall refer to these parties as "Charles." The Hon. Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas. -7-IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT o\^ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION By:, i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER FSLED U.S. DISTRICT COURT _ 1TE?.?J DISTRICT ARKANSAS EB 1 2 1993 .ENTS, CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On September 24, 1992, the Court ordered the Pulaski County Board of Education to determine whether the election zones in the Little Rock School District were out of compliance with the principle of II one man one vote" and to redraw the zones if A 0^ necessary to comply with that principle. On January 6, 1993, the Pulaski County Board of Education, after determining that the zones were out of compliance. filed a plan for election zones in the Little Rock School District. Should any party have objections to the plan. those objections, along with citations of authority, must be filed no later than February 26, 1993. Any responses to objections must be filed no later than March 18, 1993. Should the Court determine that a hearing is necessary in this matter, it will be held Monday, March 29, 1993. SO ORDERED this /day of February, 1993. I I* ti jN r o T SHEET IN HD/OR ^(s) FRCP r.: JUDGE 1 FEB 2 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION McjfiiiOf'fHJ OHtoa of Desegfeeal'O LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ELECTION ZONES The plaintiffs oppose the Motion. The County Board of Education has not prepared a plan which comports with the Voting Rights Act or which meets the prayer made by plaintiffs to the Court to allow citizens of African American descent to have a fair and reasonable opportunity to elect representatives of their choice to the Little Rock School Board. The Board has simply refused to address the Voting Rights issues. The case is therefore not ripe for consideration and requires a period for discovery and development. The plaintiffs will otherwise delineate their objections. as required by the Court, by February 26, 1993. Respectfully submitted. W. Walker I JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of February 19, 1993. Larry D. Vaught Pulaski County Attorney 201 So. Broadway, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 J' ^^hW^ LG. WalkerJOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURN EITE WILEY A. BRANTON, JR. AUSTIN PORTER, JR. * Alsu admittol In Practice in (.eorKia & the District of Columbia. John w. walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 February 19, 1993 Larry D. Vaught Pulaski County Attorney 201 So. Broadway, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. Vaught: Enclosed please find a received FEB 2 2 1993 Of?ico of Desegregation MonitOiHig copy of Plaintiff's Opposition to Pulaski County Board of Education's Motion for Approval of Election Zones which has been filed in the above matter. Sincerely, John W. Walker JWW:Ip Enclosure cc: All counsel of Record Linda Meiissa Poiiy Margie Return to: 5* FEB 2 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION C!!iC3 Ct CeseG^scar-cn ilV* LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KlIIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ELECTION ZONES The plaintiffs oppose the Motion. The County Board of Education has not prepared a plan which comports with the Voting Rights Act or which meets the prayer made by plaintiffs to the Court to allow citizens of African American descent to have a fair and reasonable opportunity to elect representatives of their choice to the Little Rock School Board. The Board has simply refused to address the Voting Rights issues. The case is therefore not ripe for consideration and requires a period for discovery and development. The plaintiffs will otherwise delineate their objections. as required by the Court, by February 26, 1993. Respectfully submitted. n W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of February 19, 1993. Larry D. Vaught Pulaski County Attorney 201 So. Broadway, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 4 JoS hn W. LO. WalkerIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT cou^^^i?A(d'?s^c^^ EASTER DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 3y:. h. 6 7953 tJn.JPLAINTIFF ' <j Z I ~ V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. received DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. mar 1 1993 INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. Ottice of Desegregation Monitoring INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS, RESPONSE AND MEMORANDUM REGARDING THE COURT'S ORDER OF FEBRUARY 16, 1993 (THE ORDER WAS APPARENTLY ENTERED BY THE COURT ON FEBRUARY 12, 1993) The Court has entered an Order which was entered on the docket February 16, 1993, requiring the parties to list any objections which they may have to the submission filed on January 6, 1993 by the defendant Pulaski County Board of Education. The plaintiffs submit the following objections to the plan. 1. The plan does establish seven districts of legally acceptable size. In that respect, plaintiffs have prevailed in causing the defendants to adapt and otherwise redraw the school election zones. 2. The January 6, 1993 submission does not address the voting rights issues raised by the lawsuit. 3. On information and belief, the County Board of Education acknowledged that it would redraw a different plan had it not felt limited by the Court's Order simply to redraw the lines in accordance with the "one man-one vote" principle. The County Board has failed to provide the Court with sufficient basis for a determining the voting rights issues.4 . The County Board of Education was divided along racial lines on the propriety of submitting an alternative which addressed the voting rights issues. 5. The only plan which addressed the voting rights issues and the "one man-one vote" issue was those developed by the plaintiffs. It is submitted herewith as Exhibit "A. II 6. The plan submitted by the County Board of Education does not take into account the concept of "packing, II nor demographic changes which have reduced the percentage of white population in the school' district in the last decade, nor the fact that African American citizens do not have in this racially polarized community an opportunity to elect sufficient number of representives of a their choice. 7. The Pulaski County School District, which has a much lower African-American population ratio than the Little Rock School District, has a plan which provides for two majority-minority districts each approximately 57% minority. North Little Rock is likewise situated and as a result of a voting rights action before this Court, three of the seven board members'therein are of the minority race. Little Rock, as plaintiff in the case against the County, et al., (and is still a plaintiff in part of this action) can surely provide and seek no less minority representation than the Pulaski County Board of Education, which was the defendant that Little Rock sued for, among other things, the right of broader minority representation on the school board. The authority of the voting rights relief is the Voting Rights Act itself, 42 U.S.C. 1973 (j) as amended, Thornburgh v. 8.Jingles, 478 US 30 (1986)
Harvell v. Ladd, 958 F2d 226
Williains V, City of Texarkana, FSupp , USDC, W.D. of Ark, decided February 19, 1993
Smith v. Clinton, 687 FSupp 1310 (ED Ark 1988), Aff'd 488 US 988 (1988) . These cases are but few in a litany which require full relief for minority citizens in voting rights cases. The Court has not ruled upon the Motions to Dismiss herein. WHEREFORE, objections considered, the plaintiffs respectfully request that: 1. The Court overrule the Motions to Dismiss
The Court require the defendants to answer the Complaint herein
The Court require the defendants to develop appropriate plans which address the voting rights issues raised by plaintiffs or. in the alternative, show cause v/hy the plans submitted by the plaintiffs are inapposite to relieve the voting rights issues and the "one man-one vote" issue raised by the plaintiffs
Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway LittJe Rock, AR 72206 By: (50, ^4-3758 y ihn^W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 9. 2. 3. fCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to all counsel. ,ay of February, 1993.-2 6 n ) 7 3 4 1 VV poa .'S_7LlO I ?3CZO ^133 G 'l^07(7 I 3 L(2 3 O i^3^o I 8o~J /29 2 I27<^ z. B 7, ^4, 7 6 I -.1 2 0 So 'S-~! iSZ^l Z(,.O 3s43S 33,6 P' Z V ! 313 788 3 4 "? 4< 4^3 3S& 23 47 z4'Z'5g> i-7 ,-3. -0.^. -'?.3 Z. X Z .^C' * '^. - 3 Z3e3^ - 3.? Z&Z^zr +3'.? I -7 34 7.4- sREU 1 W95 OUtoe oi DesegfeS^**'^'^ filed IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR^STErnSCT^^^^^ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS >'hkansas mar 2 9 1993 WESTERN DIVISION CARLh. twitwrb, CLERK By:------------------------- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DEP. CLERK PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER The motions to dismiss filed by the Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Board of Education in the matter of the election zones for the Little Rock School District Board of Directors are denied. The Court hereby orders the defendants to respond to plaintiffs' amended complaint by Friday, April 2, 1993. DATED this 29th day of March, 1993. united states district jui JUDGEFILED US. 0131- i>'. iiiuar EASTERN OTSt,-CT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT APR 1 2 1993 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION CARL a. CLERK By: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. CE?. CLERK PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This voting rights case also involves three questions, (i) whether the present plan by which school directors are elected in the Little Rock School District are significantly imbalanced to such an extent as to require creation of new zone lines to bring them into compliance with the "one-man one-vote" requirements of law, (ii) whether the 1986 zones currently result in a dilution of minority voting strength, and (iii) whether the remedial plan presented by the Pulaski County Board of Education will result in a violation of the Voting Rights Act, 1973, as amended. 2. The parties to this action are the class of school children represented by the Joshua Intervenors and Plaintiffs Dale Charles, Robert L. Brown, Sr., Gwen Hervey, Diane Davis and Raymond Frazier. These adult plaintiffs are citizens of the United States who claim that their rights under the 14th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1973, as amended, are adversely affected by the present and proposed plan for electing school board members. The adult plaintiffs raise basic voting rights issues which aresufficiently similar to or related to the remedial needs of the class to cause the Court to consolidate the cases. See Order of Consolidation [date], 3. The defendants are the members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, individually and in their official capacities
Cloyd "Mac" Bernd, in his capacity as Superintendent of Schools of the Little Rock School District
and the members of the County Board of Education of Pulaski County, in their offficial capacities as members of the County Board of Education. 4 . The Pulaski County Board of Education (hereafter "the County Board") is an agent, generally, for the three Pulaski County School Districts including the Little Rock School District with respect to certain functions that it provides or performs. It is specifically delegated by Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-607, the function of drawing or redrawing school district school election zones for the Little Rock School District. Although it has had this responsibility by statute since 1986, it has never performed this function. The Little Rock School District performed the function in 1986 and the District Court approved the District's plan. 5. In 1986, pursuant to the annexation of certain areas of the Pulaski County School District to the Little Rock School District, the Little Rock School District proposed and the Court accepted a redistricting plan by which school zone lines were drawn. It was a single-member election zone plan by which seven zones, of approximate equal populations were created. Two of the PAGE 2zones created were majority African American. 6. The complaint herein was filed by Dale Charles and the other plaintiffs on July 23, 1992. The complaint was amended on August 18, 1992. 7. The Little Rock School District, on or about July 31, 1992, moved to postpone the school district election and to reform the Little Rock School District election zones. In that motion. Little Rock also urged that the zone lines be reformed in a way that does not "abridge or deny the rights of minorities to vote." 8. On or about July 31, 1992, the school district also moved to dismiss, stating, in effect. "that relief should not be granted to the plaintiffs because it would upset relief provided by Court Order herein on December 18, 1986 and that relief would punish the school district for implementing a plan which was approved by the Court. It The school district further argued that the complaint should be dismissed because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 9. On August 18, 1992, this Court entered a Stipulated Order postponing the school elections until further Orders of the Court. On August 18, 1992, the Joshua Intervenors and plaintiffs filed an opposition to the school district's Motion to Dismiss arguing that Little Rock created the zones presently in use and that the zones had in effect become significantly imbalanced both from a race and "one-man one-vote" perspective. 10. On or about September 1, 1992, the County Defendants moved to dismiss because they did not wish to be forced to "violate PAGE 3the Order of December 18, 1986, in a separate suit. 11. On September 24, 1992, the Court Ordered the County Board to determine whether the election zones were out of compliance with the "one-man one-vote" principle and to redraw the lines if necessary. 12. The County Board proceeded to address that issue. It determined that the lines were out of compliance after directing or commissioning the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (Metroplan), a public planning agency for the various governmental units within Pulaski County to investigate that allegation. The County Board also directed or commissioned Metroplan to devise a remedial plan pursuant to the Court Order of September 24, 1992. 13. The County Board was directed by the September 24, 1993 Order to "be mindful of LRSD school attendance zones" should the County Board "find it necessary to redraw the zones." The County Board never agreed upon what was meant by this language of the Court and, also, never sought clarification. 14. The County Board developed criteria to guide Metroplan in its redistricting work. Those criteria included
(a) minimum change of existing zone lines
and (b) keeping voting precincts together. 15. The County Board did not direct Metroplan to consider the voting rights questions raised by the lawsuit. 16. On November 30, 1992, December 7, 1992, and December 29, 1992, the County Board held public meetings regarding the plan revisions. The plaintiffs' representatives were present at each PAGE 4meeting. Little Rock School Board members were also present although none were present for all of the meetings. 17. The plaintiffs presented plans to the County Board at each meeting which purported to address both the "one-man one-vote" and voting rights concerns of the plaintiffs. School Board members Dorsey Jackson and Bill Hamilton were perhaps the most vocal Little Rock School Directors to address the issue. Jackson took the view, as he has taken in Court, that the plaintiffs and the African American community already have nearly proportional representation in that 28.3% of the Board is of their race while their population is 33% His argument is that with time and demographic change, a third majority African American zone could evolve. Hamilton's view was directly opposite, i.e., the numbers favor a third majority African American district now and that, due to the concerns and needs of that population segment, equality and equity concerns would fare better with a third minority district. He also pointed out that a creation of an African American district does not necessarily mean that that community will elect a member from that racial group to the board. A major difference between the two perspectives focused upon the concept of "stability," with Jackson arguing, in effect. for a plan which did not result in changing the present board membership. His argument is essentially an argument which provides some degree of protected status to incumbents. 18. On December 29, 1992, the County Board voted to present one plan for bringing the present zone lines into balance. The PAGE 5vote was along racial lines in that the four white County Board members voted for it while the one African American Board member voted against it. 19. On February 16, 1993, the County Board submitted its proposed new election zone plan to this Court. On or about February 19, 1993, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the County Board of Education's approval of these election zones. 20. The plaintiffs contend that the remedial plans devised at the request of the County Board do not address the voting rights issue
the defendants agree. In fact the County Board has never addressed the voting rights question other than to say that to do so would violate the 1986 Court Order herein. 21. The Little Rock School Defendants urge that they have no role in this matter other than as an observer and that they have no duty under the statute or otherwise to address the voting rights issues. Therefore, although they deny the voting rights allegations, if their position is accepted they have no standing to assert a defense of the voting rights issue. If that is the case, the defense of the voting rights issues must be made, if at all, by the County Board and that board does not address the issue as it has been presented by the present complaints except to plead res judicata, i.e., the 1986 Court Decision. 22. Both the County Board and the Little Rock School Board and their members have failed to respond to the voting rights issues raised herein on the basis of the evidence and allegations raised by plaintiffs. PAGE 623. The plaintiffs sought to establish the "one-man one-vote" violation by showing significant imbalance in the population of the 1986 zones. The II ideal II zone would be approximately 24,800. The 1986 zones range from approximately 8,600 below the norm to approximately 7,500 above the norm of 24,800. Defendants admit these population disparities. 24. The plaintiffs have assumed the burden of bringing these violations to light and remedy. They are the prevailing party. therefore, with respect to their allegations regarding "one-man one-vote. It They are also the prevailing parties with respect to the voting rights violations because of both the proof which they presented to the Court and the legal position or lack of legal position which has been taken by the defendants. The Court will proceed to address the proof of the violations. 25. The plaintiffs have also demonstrated that the present zones lines are significantly racially imbalanced. Zone One (1) is 85% African American and Zone Two (2) is 77.5% African American. This significant imbalance demonstrates that African Americans are "packed" into Zones One (1) and Two (2). Of approximately 58,000 African American citizens, approximately 31,000 of them are concentrated in the two zones where they have an opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. The other 27,000, about an equal number, are all dispersed so that they have no effective opportunity to significantly influence director election in any of the remaining five zones. It is clear that were the five majority white zones standing alone in an at-large system, African American PAGE 7voters could not elect a single director of their choice provided, of course, they could not show the other requirements of law. Onefourth (^) of the population ought reasonably be able to elect at least one of five directors in these zones. Thus, African American voters are submerged within these zones just as surely as they would be in a purely at-large system. 26. The plaintiffs contend that Zones 3 through 7 of the present system are analogous to an at-large election system because those zones, as they are constituted, effectively dilutes their vote. They further contend that the State cannot dilute African American voting strength by either concentrating it in the form of "packing" or by having it dispersed so as to be ineffective within the context of a polarized voting system. 27. The plaintiffs further sought to establish liability by addressing the other "senate factors" relevant to a vote dilution claim. See Thornburg v. Ginqles. 478 U.s. 30, ___ 106 S.Ct. 2752 (1986). The District, itself, has been continuously under Court Orders to desegregate since 1957. Most recently in 1984, this Court entered an Order, partially on the motion of the school district, finding that the District had not extricated itself from its segregated history and that many of its continuing practices violate the law. Pursuant to the liability findings of the Court, the Little Rock School District entered into a settlement with African American plaintiffs and the two other school districts whereby it committed by a specific plan to cease practices of discrimination and to eliminate vestiges of discrimination. This PAGE 8Court has repeatedly, and recently, expressed its concern that the district was not implementing its desegregation plan in good faith. Indeed, several of the board members have shown disregard for the plan and lack of commitment to it. Those findings are incorporated into this record by reference. 28. The plaintiffs have also shown that the school board has not had a public discussion of the voting rights case to this date. This is an indication that the school board does not view the concerns of the plaintiffs seriously. This is consistent with this Court's earlier findings of bad faith on the part of the Little Rock School District. Good faith requires that the school board take seriously the issues which are raised by the minority community and reply to them even though the reply may not be in the form, content or result which the minority prefers. These are facts showing a lack of responsiveness to the particular concerns of the minority voters. 29. School board members have also acknowledged this lack of responsiveness to minority concerns. See the testimony of Dorsey a Jackson and Willie Hamilton. There is no contrary evidence. 30. The school district's plan of desegregation recognizes the existence of significant educational achievement disparities between students of African American descent and others. This is an area of inquiry on the subject of responsiveness. The district has not effectively addressed the issue of remediation of achievement disparities. That failure indicates that the board either does not wish to do so or has not implemented the plan as PAGE 9expected and promised. 31. Moreover, the Board of Education was the initial moving party and plaintiff in the desegregation case. It sought to promote a plan which involved the other two school districts in the county which maximized student exchange, interdistrict assignments, and other desegregation programs. It was held to be the prevailing party by this Court. As a moving party in this case, insofar as the students are concerned, the Little Rock School District has been derelict. The Court has spent far more time addressing the concerns which it has regarding plan implementation with the Little Rock School District than it has with either of the two other school districts. The Court here notes that the other two school districts have also abandoned or changed their method of either school directors from at-large to single districts. North Little Rock has seven single-member districts, of which Zones 1 and 2 are 58.8% and 59.9%, respectively. The North Little Rock district is between 45-50% African American while the Pulaski County African American population is between 30-35%. African American students, it has been contended by both plaintiffs and the Little Rock School District, stand in greater need of more and more effective advocates on their behalf. Therefore, it follows not only that should Little Rock be held to no lower standard in determining the number of African American election districts, but there is a compelling reason for having more, i.e.. the very need urged by the school district to the Court. Board representation of those interests by persons of their choice is the PAGE 10most effective form of advocacy. 32. The plaintiffs have presented further evidence of the circumstances that underlie the basis for a different kind of a plan. The City of Little Rock has a population of approximately 175,795, of which as of 1990, 59,742 were African American. This is closely analogous to the school district population which is 173,674, of which 58,438 are African American. See Plaintiffs' Exhibits and The school age population, however, in the City of Little Rock, is roughly 30,500, of which roughly 52% are African Americans. Virtually all of the African American children attend the public school system while approximately 60% of the "other" population does so. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit The per capita income of African Americans within the City of Little Rock is $7,559 while it is $19,395 for others. In other words, the African American per capita income is approximately 40% of the average income for other persons who are primarily white. The poverty status is determined by that number of persons who have an income below or above a certain figure. Of the white population, of approximately 111,600, only 7.1% were below that figure in 1990. Of the 58,553 persons of African American descent, 28.9% were below poverty. The conclusion to be drawn from these statistics is that the African American poverty rate is at least 4 times that of the white poverty rate. Moreover, when poverty is assessed more carefully by family type and the presence of children, one of the principle concerns of the class represented PAGE 11by Joshua, the poverty rate of African American female heads of households is nearly 50%. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33 . The statistics show that African Americans are more likely to be unemployed or not in the labor force. African Americans are less likely to have vehicles available, a factor which relates to their employability now that Little Rock has expanded and taken jobs far westward and away from areas of African American concentration. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit 34 . There is little likelihood that these disparities will be alleviated or relieved under present circumstances. Moreover, it reasonable to infer that official racial discrimination is a major contributing factor in causing these disparities. See Jeffers v. Clinton, 730 F.Supp. 196, 204, Eastern District of Arkansas 1989. Furthermore, the African American population is increasing by one- third percent ('M) each year while the white population is decreasing by that same figure. The likely consequence is that the African American population by the year 2000 will be at least 36%. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit Under the circumstances, it is evident that the social and economic factors indicate that African American persons are in serious disadvantage insofar as the relevant indices set forth above are concerned. 35. The plaintiffs also demonstrated that statistically significant racially polarized voting exists in this community. They did this by showing that in recent elections which pitted candidates of African American ancestry versus white candidates. PAGE 12white voters usually voted for the white candidate, and African American voters voted for the African American candidate. The correlation coefficients showing racially polarized voting in the relevant Little Rock elections range from .7 See to . 9 Plaintiffs' Exhibit There were no exceptions. Moreover, it is evident that African Americans do not seek to compete in those races for which they have only a miniscule chance of success. Thus, they have not sought election in any of the majority white zones in Little Rock nor have they sought election in any of the majority white zones. 36. There is no contrary evidence regarding the plaintiffs' proof on polarized voting. 37. Plaintiffs have also demonstrated that it is possible to create at least three districts each of which has a substantial majority of African American citizens without "packing" any particular district. Dilution of African American voting interests is thus averted. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit The total percentages of the three districts (Nos. 1, 2, and 6) are 64.7%, 64.0%, and 61.7%, respectively. The voting age population within these three districts would be approximately 57 to 60% and would in each instance be slightly greater than the voting age populations of North Little Rock and Pulaski County. 38. The plan submitted by plaintiffs represents compact and continuous districts which have been characterized by Jim McKinzie of Metroplan as the plan that he would accept as addressing the voting rights issue. Metroplan is the agency which devised the PAGE 13County Board's plan to alleviate and remediate the "one-man one- vote" deficiencies. When Mr. Cecil Bailey, Chairman of the County Board was asked, Q. "I understand. were you aware that Metroplan - - of the position that Metroplan took with respect to the plans which were developed by Mr. Nagel as plans which could be implemented in compliance with the voting rights act. He answered as follows: A. "I remember one time a discussion with Mr. McKenzie subsequent to the second forum, (sic), the second public forum that we had. that if we consideration were per going to take that into se. that Mr. Nagel's proposal would probably be the best one to use. " (Bailey Deposition, pp. 34-35.) The County Board vote was along racial lines to reject all plans other than one which strictly numerically equalized each voting district. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit ___ (Board Minutes of December 29, 1992 wherein Thomas Broughton, an African American citizen. cast the only negative vote. The other members of the board are white). 39. For the record, Little Rock has a long history of electing two African American persons to the Board of Directors out of a total of seven. 40. Little Rock School Board members Dorsey Jackson and Pat Gee, publicly opposed changing the zone lines to increase the opportunities for selection of African American board members. Jackson did so, however, on the basis that percentage-wise, African Americans were 28 of the population and they had about their fair share of representation. This was satisfactory for him. See PAGE 14Jackson Deposition, pp. 16-17. However, for purposes of this hearing, Mr. Jackson has stated that he is not opposed to the creation of three majority African American zones. See Jackson Deposition, pp. 32-33. 41. For purposes of this case. no school board member of either board has stated opposition to the creation of three majority African American zones in the Little Rock School District. 42. The approach taken by the Little Rock School Board has been to do nothing and take no vote with respect to the voting rights issues but, by the Court's talley, the majority of the school board is unopposed to the changes requested by the plaintiffs' in this action. Moreover, the County Board members have construed the Court's Order narrowly and have not addressed the voting rights issue. There appears. however. to be no opposition by the County Board to the creation of three minority zones. 43. The defendants have offered no defense and introduced no evidence by which to controvert the plaintiffs' prima facie case. Indeed, the County Board, has never considered the voting rights issue. The County Board has offered no evidence in opposition to the voting rights proof proffered by plaintiffs. Since the County Board is the responsible party and if the County Board is the agent of the Little Rock School District for this purpose by statute. (drawing election zones) , then there must be a finding by the Court of liability against the County Board of Education, and it is so found. PAGE 1544. The LRSD Board, like the County Board, has not addressed the issue in a public forum or by public vote. No school board member has appeared to oppose the relief prayed for by plaintiffs. Based upon the Answer of the defendants. the issue has been controverted so that the Court has to accept the position that the defendants oppose the relief sought. But they have presented no proof in support of their position other than, like the County Board, their reliance upon the Order of this Court which created zones on the motion of the school district at the time of the Court Ordered annexation of certain parts of the Pulaski County Special School District. 45. I examine that position. First, the school district was the moving party in the case at the time. However, it had no standing to raise voting rights issues as such. Second, the Joshua Intervenors were not the moving parties in that they did not petition the Court at that time for voting rights relief and when the issue was presented to the Court in 1984, they were not parties with full status. See Docket, 5-2-84. Therefore on the basis of the Voting Rights Act, the res judicata argument is unavailable. While the Court made mention of the Voting Rights Act in its 1986 Order, the Court views those comments as dicta. They were not pertinent otherwise for the following additional reasons. Although that Order was entered in 1986, the population of the district had already materially shifted and had become more polarized. Finally, there was no hearing on the issue and there was no formal stipulation that froze the lines ad infinitum. PAGE 16address. The present circumstances are what the Court must It is highly unlikely that more than a third of District One would have moved from that district between 1986 and 1990. Thus the district was never equal in size. Moreover, its racial percentage was far greater in 1986 than in 1980 by simple demographic logic. Whites were moving out of the district at a high rate and were not being replaced by whites. It is thus likely that the district was more than 85% in 1986. It is now clearly possible to create three districts, each of approximately the same approximate proportion which are of African American majority. At the time of the 1986 Order, the population figures were less reliable than they are one year after the census report was issued for the 1990 census. That census shows that the African American population has increased substantially although its voice by way of representation has remained constant in the form of two majority election districts. 46. The school district which urges a greater voice in governance for its minority population cannot oppose it when it counts - now - and simply because it counts. If the district takes the position of increasing that voice and representation in governance, then it is evident bad faith to oppose it in this Court without substantial legal proof in support of its position. 47. The Voting Rights Act represents Congress' intention that citizens votes not be diluted or adversely affected due to their race or color, through any practice, procedure or electoral scheme. This includes the "packing" votes of one race in unreasonably high PAGE 17proportions into one or more zones. "Districts with a black majority greater than 65% 70% necessary to (the percentage opportunity to ensure elect blacks candidates choice) may evidence "packing." considered reasonable of their Ketchum v. Byrne, 740 F.2d 1398, 1407-8, n. 7 (7th Cir. 1984 and Elections see of Rybicki v. State Board the State of Illinois, of 574 F.Supp. 1082, 1120-21 (N.D. Ill. 1982) (three judge panel) (Rybicki I). a Moreover, "packing" has a tendency to promote and reinforce the idea that there is an official intent to limit access to the political process of African American citizens. On the other hand. the creation of majority African American districts of the proportions presented by plaintiffs. does not guarantee that persons of African American descent will in fact win those positions. These alternative districts merely eliminate the dilution of the votes in the current plan. 48. In that plaintiffs have made a prima facie case and that the defendants have not rebutted that case, the Court must find in favor of the plaintiffs and order relief. 49. The plaintiffs are the only party to present a remedy to the Court. The County Board of Education just simply failed to address this issue because it misperceived the Court's Order. The school district. on the other hand. has not even submitted the issue in a public forum for consideration, and therefore, ignored the complaint of plaintiffs herein. It's proof herein is absent
on the other hand, the school board majority does not oppose the relief sought. Indeed, three members strongly favor it. 50. The plaintiffs' plan is the only plan before the Court PAGE 18which will not result in constitutional or Voting Rights Act violations. There are no substantial objections to that plan raised by the defendants. The objections raised by the defendants relate to compactness and contiguity but they are insubstantial. First, the same objections could be raised to the plan proposed by the County Board in purported remediation of the "one-man one-vote" deficiencies. Second, the lines are the lines and there is no requirement that they be rectangular. triangular. oval, or otherwise. The only requirement is contiguity. That means continuous in geography or geography which abuts continuously. The plaintiffs' plan meets that requirement. The compactness requirement has to be viewed in the context of the "one-man one- vote" consideration where the first mandate is to combine geographic population areas in such a way as to be of equal size for each district. That is done here. The plaintiffs' plan meets the "one-man one-vote" requirement and it does not substantially vary from the 5 o figure which is the usual range of variance in these cases. 51. The plan developed by Metroplan does not meet or otherwise satisfy the Voting Rights Act requirements. Nor does it pretend to. Its author candidly admits that that was not its purpose. Under the circumstances, therefore, there is no legitimate objection to the plan presented by the plaintiffs'. 52. Under ordinary circumstances, the Court would defer to defendants who are public representatives, at least to the extent of affording them an opportunity to present a remedial plan to PAGE 19address the liability found by the Court. In this case, that is unnecessary because both defendants had the opportunity to do so and the County Board was directed to do so by specific Order of the Court and did not do so. Moreover, Jim McKenzie of Metroplan testified that he would have addressed the issue in the same manner as Jack Nagel of the plaintiffs' law firm, who worked with the County Board on these matters. Therefore, it would be a waste of time and money to the parties and to the Court and an exercise in futility because any plan which creates three majority African American districts would be substantially similar to the one presented by the plaintiffs. 53 . It is therefore the finding of this Court that the plaintiffs have met their burden of proof in the case as a whole and that they are entitled to the relief prayed. It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that judgment be rendered for plaintiffs and that the Defendant County Board of Education be, and it is hereby instructed. to implement the plan proposed by plaintiffs for the election of school directors to the Little Rock School Board of Directors at an election to be held within forty- five (45) days from this date. The election is to, as far as possible, comply with the requirements of Arkansas law and is to be conducted for all seven positions at the same time. After the election and at the first meeting of the newly constituted school board, the members shall draw by lot to determine the length of terms of members. There will be no other election for school directors PAGE 20until the regular school elections in 1994 for the election of school board members. This will mean that the first directors will serve at least one year in addition to the time between the date of the election and the September, 1994 regular school election date. 54. It is the further Order and Judgment of the Court that plaintiffs are the prevailing party herein and that they are entitled to their costs and reasonable counsel fees. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE PAGE 21RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 1 3 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring DALE CHARLES, ROBERT L. BROWN, SR., GWEN HEVEY JACKSON, DIANE DAVIS, and RAYMOND FRAZIER PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-92-476 O.G. JACOVELLI, Individually and As President of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, PATRICIA GEE, DR. GEORGE CTU^NON, JOHN MOORE, DORSEY JACKSON, DR. KATHERINE MITCHELL and W.D. "BILL" HAMILTON, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body, Individually and In Their Official Capacities and THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, A Public Body Corporate
CECIL BAILEY, THOMAS BROUGHTON, DR. GEORGE McCRARY, DR. MARTIN ZOLDESSY, and E. GRAINGER WILLIAMS, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as members of the Pulaski County Board of Education
and THE PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, A Public Corporate DEFENDANTS I. TRIAL BRIEF INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs have challenged the redistricting plan for the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") Board of Directors adopted by the Pulaski County Board of Education ("PCBE"), claiming it violates 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. This Court ordered the Pulaski County Board ofEducation to develop a plan in light of the 1990 census to bring the LRSD districting plan in compliance with the one man, one vote requirement of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. All of the parties agreed that the old plan, which had been in effect by order of Judge Henry Woods since December of 1986, was not in compliance with the one man, one vote requirement when judged by 1990 census information. Now that the PCBE has adopted a new districting scheme. Plaintiff's allegations that the old plan violated the Voting Rights Act have become moot. Growe V, Emison. 61 U.S.L.W. 4163, 4167 (February 23, 1993). In order to prevail on their claim that the new districting scheme violates 2 of the Voting Rights Act, Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that they will have less opportunity under the plan just adopted by the PCBE to participate in the political process and less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice than under the plan approved by Judge Woods in December of 1986. Chisom V. Roemer, 501 U.S. ___, 115 L.Ed.2d 348, 364 (1991)
Turner v. State of Arkansas. 784 F.Supp. 553, 573 (E.D.Ark. 1991), aff'd 119 L.Ed.2d 220 (1992). In order to prevail on their constitutional claims, the Plaintiffs must show that there existed a purposeful intent to discriminate on the part of the PCBE. City of Mobile v. Bolden. 446 U.S. 55 (1980). Plaintiffs will be unable to meet their burden with regard to both their 2 and constitutional claims. The relief sought must be denied. 2II, DUTY OF COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION Before discussing whether the districting scheme adopted by the PCBE violates the Voting Rights Act, it should be noted that the PCBE was not required by the Act to create the maximum number of majority-minority districts. The Voting Rights Act is not an affirmative action statute, and it "is not violated by a state legislature simply because that legislature does not enact a districting plan that maximizes black political power and influence." Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 573. The court in Turner explained
Congress did not intend to provide minority voters with 'maximum feasible minority voting strength.' Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 94, 106 S.Ct. at 2789 (O'Conner, J., concurring). The maximum minority voting strength would be tantamount to proportional representation, which is expressly prohibited by the language of the statute. Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 577. The mandate of the Voting Rights Act is fl you shall not harm" rather than II you shall help." Jeffers v. Clinton. 730 F.Supp. 196, 241 (E.D.Ark. 1989)(Eisele, J., concurring and dissenting). Consequently, the contention in Plaintiffs' complaint that the Voting Rights Act required the County Board to create another majority-minority district should be rejected. This Court may not substitute its judgement for that of the County Board. The Supreme Court has held it is error for a federal district court not to defer to state efforts to redraw legislative districts. Growe. 61 U.S.L.W. at 4167-68
see also 3Voinovich v. Quilter. 61 U.S.L.W. 4199, 4202 (March 2, 1993). Likewise, the Fifth Circuit has noted that, "the federal district court is precluded from substituting even what it considers to be an objectively superior plan for an otherwise constitutionally and legally valid plan that has been proposed and enacted by the appropriate state governmental unit." Seastrunk v. Burns. 772 F.2d 143, 151 (5th Cir. 1985). See also Turner v. State of Arkansas. 784 F.Supp. 585, 589 (E.D.Ark. 1991). Therefore, this Court may not alter or amend the districting scheme adopted by the PCBE absent finding a violation of federal law. Finally, this Court should recognize as a legitimate consideration the County Board's attempt to maintain to the extent possible the prior boundary lines of the districts. See. 6^3,., Wyche v. Madison Parish Police Jury. 635 F.2d 1151, 1162 (5th Cir. 1981). A new districting plan which tracks as closely as possible the prior plan decreases voter confusion and apathy. Seastrunk v. Burns. 772 F.2d 143, 146 n.6 (5th Cir. 1985). Preservation of existing boundary lines is a legitimate goal of the County Board. The plan approved in Turner was based upon an express preference for II a plan which departs as little as possible" from the previous court-approved plan. Turner. 784 F. Supp. at 556. III. VOTING RIGHTS ACT The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was originally passed to enfranchise blacks in the south by tearing down obstacles to 4registration and voting. Jeffers v. Clinton. 730 F.Supp. 196, 227 (E.D.Ark. 1989). The Act provides that no state may impose a standard, practice or procedure "which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color . . II 42 U.S.C. 1973(a) (Supp. 1992). Subsection (b) of the Act describes how a violation of the proscription contained in subsection (a) is established: A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if, based on the totality of the 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 to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of the protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population. 42 U.S.C. 1973(b) (Supp. 1992) (emphasis in original). In interpreting the language of 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court has made it clear that in order to prevail on a 2 claim a plaintiff bears the burden of proving both less opportunity to participate in the political process and less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. In Chisom. supra, the Supreme Court stated: [T]he inability to elect representatives of their choice is not sufficient to establish a a 5violation unless, under the totality of the circumstances, it can also be said that the members of the protected class have less opportunity to participate in the political process. The statute does not create two separate and distinct rights. It would distort the plain meaning of the sentence to substitute the word "or" for the word "and." Such radical surgery would be required to separate the opportunity to participate from the opportunity to elect. Chisom. 115 L.Ed.2d at 364. See Turner. 784 F.Supp at 574 n. 20. The Turner court provided guidance for determining whether plaintiff will "less opportunity" to participate: "Less opportunity" by any fair interpretation means "less opportunity" than such black voters had immedicately before the impostion or application of the challenged standard practice or procedure
not "less opportunity" than they would have, had the legislature seized the opportunity to help them by maximizing their political influence. Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 573. The Senate has identified a number of factors which II may" * * * be relevant to a 2 claim: 1. 4. The history of voting related discrimination in the State or political subdivision
2 . The extent to which voting in the elections in the State or political subdivision is racially polarized
3 . The extent to which the State or political subdivision has used voting practices or procedures that tend to enhance to opportunity for discrimination against the minority group, such as unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, and prohibitions against bullet voting
The exclusion of members of the minority group from the candidate slating process
65. The extent to which minority group members bear the effects of past discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process
6. The use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns
and. 7. The extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction. Ginqles, 478 U.S. at 30, 44-45 (1986). In addition, the Senate Report notes that evidence demonstrating that elected officials are unresponsive to the particularized needs of the members of the minority group and that the policy underlying the State's or political subdivision's use of the contested practice is tenuous may have probative value. Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 45. The Senate, in enumerating these factors, recognized that they may not be relevant in all 2 cases. Id. Consideration of the Senate Factors in determining whether a violation of 2 exists has been criticized because the factors often take attention away from the real issue. In this regard, the court in Whitfield v. Democratic Party of Arkansas, 686 F.Supp. 1365 (E.D.Ark. 1988), aff'd 902 F.2d 15 (8th Cir. 1990) wrote: Having reviewed the Senate Report factors and some of the proof relating thereto, the Court must determine whether its positive findings with respect to many of those factors make it more probably true than not true that the challenged run-off provision makes the political processes not "equally open to participation" by blacks in that blacks have "less opportunity than whites to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice." It should be apparent by now that most of the positive findings with the respect to the 7Senate Report factors have no tendency to prove, or disprove, that proposition. ' truth is that focusing on some of those The factors serves more as a distraction than a useful tool for evaluating the cause and effect operation of the challenged runoff laws. 686 F.Supp. at 1387. See also, Jeffers, 730 F.Supp. at 232. Likewise, in the case at hand, an evaluation of the Senate Report factors adds little to the inquiry of whether, under the new districting scheme adopted by the County Board for the LRSD Board of Directors, Plaintiff's have "less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice." 42 U.S.C. 1973(b) (Supp. 1992). Consequently, an extensive discussion of each factor is not justified. Factors will be discussed where relevant to the issue being analyzed. A. Less Opportunity to Participate in the Political Process. The first question in analyzing a 2 claim is whether the challenged standard, practice or procedure results in the plaintiff having "less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process . . II 42 U.S.C. 1973(b) (Supp. 1992)
Chisom. 115 L.Ed.2d at 364. In the case at hand. Plaintiffs must prove that the districting scheme adopted by the County Board results in their having less opportunity to participate in the political process than under the prior districting plan. See Whitfield. 686 F.Supp. at 1375. In this regard. Plaintiffs may look to Senate Report factor 8number five concerning the residual effects of past discrimination. As the court stated in Whitfield. "Because there are no legal barriers remaining to the opportunity for blacks to participate in the political process, plaintiffs have naturally emphasized the 'socioeconomic' factors." Whitfield. 686 F.Supp. at 1384. See al^, Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 577, quoting Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 204 ("There are no presently existing legal barriers to voting by black citizens in Arkansas, and therefore they have just as much opportunity to participate in the political process as anyone else.")
Leadership Roundtable v. City of Little Rock. 499 F.Supp. 579, 584 (E.D.Ark. 1980) ("Since 1965, there has been no legal impediment in Arkansas to voting by Blacks."). This argument is based on the assumption that the young, poor and uneducated do not participate in the political process in the same proportions as the old, rich and educated. Plaintiffs may argue that the minority group has the former characteristics in greater proportion than the majority group. See Whitfield. 686 F.Supp. at 1385. Even so, consideration of the residual effects of past discrimination provides no insight into the issue of whether the districting scheme adopted by the County Board provides the Plaintiffs less opportunity to participate in the political process than under the previous plan. Regardless of where the district lines are drawn, the Plaintiffs will have the same socioeconomic status. If the lines were drawn as the Plaintiffs request, would their opportunity "to participate" be any 9different? Clearly not. It is not the line drawing by the County Board which "results" in Plaintiffs having less opportunity
rather, it is the diminished socioeconomic status. Section 2 does not purport to provide a remedy on the latter basis. See Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 237, 238. Therefore, because Plaintiffs will be unable to prove that have less opportunity to participate in the political process under the districting plan adopted by the County Board, the Plaintiffs' Voting Rights Act claim must fail. B. Less Opportunity to Elect Representatives of Their Choice. The second element of a Voting Rights Act claim which Plaintiffs have the burden to establish is that they have less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice under the districting scheme adopted by the County Board than under the former districting plan. The Supreme Court has identified three 11 necessary preconditions" for a districting scheme to impair minority voters ability to elect representatives of their choice: First, that it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district, is not, as would be the case in a If it substantially integrated district, the multimember form of the district cannot be responsible for minority voters' inability to elect its candidates. [citations omitted]. Second, the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive. If the minority group is not politically cohesive, it cannot be said that the selection of a multimember electoral structure thwarts distinctive minority group interests. [citations omitted]. Third, the minority 10must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it in the absence of special circumstances, such as a minority candidate running unopposed . . . usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate. [citations omitted]. In establishing this last circumstance, the minority group demonstrates the submergence in a white multimember district impedes its ability to elect representatives of its chosen representation. Ginqles, 478 U.S. at 50-51. These "necessary preconditions" will be discussed in turn. 1. Geographically Compact. More than mere numerical superiority needs to be considered in determining whether Plaintiffs constitute a sufficient majority in a single-member district to elect representatives of their choice. Plaintiffs must be more than a simple majority in order to ensure that they have the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. As the Court explained in Smith v. Clinton. 687 F.Supp. 1361 (E.D.Ark. 1988): A guideline of 65% of total population is frequently used, and is derived by supplementing a simple majority with additional 5% to offset the fact that an minority population tends to be younger than that of whites, 5% for the well-documented pattern of low voter registration, and 5% for low voter turnout among minorities. Smith. 687 F.Supp at 1363. See also Fletcher v. Golder. 959 F.2d 106, 110 (8th Cir. 1992). Therefore, in order to create a "safe" minority district, the district must have at least 65% minority population. In the case at hand. Plaintiffs are arguing that three majority black districts should be created. However, as the 11Plaintiffs own proposal reveals, three "safe" majority black districts cannot be created. Plaintiffs may argue that black voters will be able to elect representatives of their choice with a black majority of less than 65% because of white "crossover" votes, but this argument by Plaintiffs only goes to show that Little Rock does not suffer racially polarized voting, another "necessary precondition". Hence, either way, the Plaintiffs' Voting Rights Act claim must fail. 2 . Politically Cohesive. To establish political cohesiveness. Plaintiffs must come forward with proof with regard to the voting patterns in each individual district. The Supreme Court warned in Ginqles that "courts must not rely on data aggregated from all the challenged districts in concluding that racially polarized voting exists in each district." Ginales, 478 U.S. at 59. Even the Senate factor on racially polarized voting directs the inquiry to voting behavior of the particular "State or political subdivision" at issue. See Senate Report Factor No. 2, supra. In addition, Plaintiffs should be reguired to show that districting plan adopted by the County Board is drawn in such a way that it has resulted in the packing or fragmenting of prior existing cohesive black groups. Jeffers, 730 F.Supp. at 196. If the plan adopted by the PCBE in no way decreases or curtails the effectiveness of black participation by packing or fragmenting prior existing cohesive black groups, the PCBE's plan does not "result" in Plaintiffs having less opportunity to elect 12representatives of their choice. Consequently, Plaintiffs have not proved a violation of the Voting Rights Act. 3. White Bloc Voting. In general, "a white bloc vote that normally will defeat the combined strength of minority support plus white 'crossover' votes rises to the level of legally significant white bloc voting." Gingles. 478 U.S. at 56. This situation simply does not exist in Little Rock. In 1980, Judge Eisele, after careful contemplation of a voluminous amount of data, concluded that Little Rock does not have racially polarized voting. Leadership Roundtable v. Little Rock. 499 F.Supp. 579 (E.D.Ark 1980). This Court should take judicial notice of the findings of fact in Leadership Roundtable. In the Court's consideration of Plaintiff's evidence of white bloc voting, the Court should consider evidence that factors other than race determine the outcomes of elections. This evidence is relevant to determine whether "bloc voting by white voters will consistently defeat minority candidates." Gingles, 478 U.S. at 100 (0,Conner, J., Concurring). It also "would suggest that another candidate, equally preferred by the minority group, might be able to attract greater white support in future elections." Id. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to set forth proof that other factors usually determinative of political success (i.e., the candidates' platforms and policies. their ability as speakers, their "track records" in the community, their name recognition, and their financial support. 13etc.) were not the factors which attracted white voters. See Jeffers, 730 F.Supp. at 246 (Eisele, J., concurring and dissenting). 4. Vote Dilution. If the Court should find that Plaintiffs have satisfied the "necessary preconditions" discussed above, the Plaintiffs still have the burden of proving that under the districting plan adopted by the County Board they have less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice than under the prior districting scheme. Plaintiffs argue that three majority black districts could have, and therefore should have, been created by the County Board. In the terminology of 2, Plaintiffs claim vote dilution due to "packing", i.e. blacks were packed into two districts with overwhelming black majorities preventing a third majority black district. However, a comparison of the districting plan adopted by the County Board with the prior plan reveals that more "packing" existed under the prior plan.' Moreover, the prior plan, when adopted by Judge Woods and held to be in compliance with the Voting Rights Act, had greater "packing" than the plan adopted by the County Board. In fact, if Plaintiffs' concern is "packing". 'Under the prior districting scheme, the two majority black districts had 84.35% and 74.97% black population according to the 1990 census. Under the plan adopted by the County Board, the two majority black districts have 79.82" ' ----------* * ' Q, and 59.39% black population. ^The plan adopted by Judge Woods in December of 1986 had two majority black zones with 81.50% and 68.90% black population, compared with 79.82% and 59.39% in the PCBE plan. Judge Woods' finding that his plan was in compliance with the Voting Rights 141 they are better off under the plan adopted by the County Board than they have ever been since the LRSD Board of Directors have been elected by single-member districts. Therefore, Plaintiffs will be unable to prove any vote dilution resulting from the districting scheme adopted by the County Board, and consequently. they will be unable to show they have less opportunity under the County Board districting plan to elect representatives of their choice than under the prior districting plan. C. Conclusion. Plaintiffs will be unable to prove either element of a Voting Rights Act claim. The PCBE plan does not result in less opportunity to participate in the political process based on the socioeconomic effects of past discrimination because these socioeconomic factors are present regardless of where the district lines are drawn. Plaintiffs cannot establish the "necessary preconditions" in order to show less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. Moreover, even if they could make such a showing, the Plaintiffs claim fails because the districting scheme adopted by the County Board has less "packing" than the prior plan currently has and than the prior plan had when it was adopted by Judge Woods in 1986 and held to be in compliance with the Voting Rights Act. For all the above reasons, the relief sought by Plaintiffs under the Voting Rights Act should be denied. Act was not appealed, and remains the law of the case. 15IV. CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS In order to establish that the districting scheme adopted by the County Board is unconstitutional, Plaintiff must prove that the plan was adopted with the purposeful intent by the members of the County Board to discriminate against Plaintiffs. City of Mobile V. Bolden. 446 U.S. 55 (1980). It is impossible to speculate what evidence of discriminatory intent Plaintiffs will bring forward because none exists. It will suffice to say that Plaintiffs will be unable to prove any constitutional violations. Respectfully submitted, Christopher Heller John C. Pendley FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: Christopher Heller Bar No. 81083 16 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Trial Brief has been served on the following counsel by depositing copy of same on this 12th day of April, 1993. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (HAND DELIVERED) Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) Mr. Larry Vaught County Attorney Pulaski County Board of Education 201 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (HAND DELIVERED) Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) 17 u. jLED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN 2 J 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this action. which is part of the a. SRENTS, CLERK ---- OHP. Cli PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS continuing case concerning the desegregation of the school districts of Pulaski County, Arkansas, plaintiffs challenge the existing zones used to elect members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors as well as the new zones adopted by the Pulaski County Board of Education. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973 (Supp. 1992), and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. They argue that the present plan violates the one-man one-vote principle and dilutes minority voting strength, and that the new plan packs the black voting age population into two zones even though blacks are numerically large and geographically compact to constitute a third majority black zone. This case was tried to the Court on April 13 and 14, 1993. The Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 52. Any other statement in this opinion which may be deemed a finding of fact is also adopted as such. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The named plaintiffs, Dale Charles, Robert L. Brown, Sr., Gwen Hevey Jackson, Diane Davis, and Raymond Frazier ("Charles plaintiffs"), are black adult residents of the Little Rock School District. The Charles plaintiffs' amended complaint has been consolidated with Case No. LR-C-82-866, Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District. The Charles plaintiffs bring this action 2. to reform the single member district school zone lines which are utilized by the defendants in school elections for the purpose of electing school directors. also an action to ensure that This is such reformation is pursuant to and consistent with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended. Plaintiffs seek to have the district refomned into single member districts of approximately equal population pursuant to a plan that allows of African American descent the seven (7) citizens opportunity to maximize their opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representation of their choice. Defendants are the Little Rock School District ("LRSD"), the members of the Board of Directors of the LRSD, the Pulaski County Board of Education ("PCBE"), and the members of the PCBE. 3. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-607 (Michie 1991), the PCBE has the responsibility to divide school districts which have an average daily attendance in excess of 24,000 students into zones for the purpose of electing members to that school district's board of directors. 4. The present LRSD election zones were established by order of the court on December 18, 1986, after certain areas of the Pulaski County Special School District were annexed to the LRSD. Followingthe annexation, the LRSD presented a proposal for zone elections to Judge Henry Woods. That proposal was the subject of a December 9, 1986 pretrial conference. LRSD Exhibit 1. On December 10, 1986, the LRSD Board of Directors voted unanimously to approve the zone proposal. Charles Exhibit 36. The zones adopted in 1986 had the following populations and racial compositions according to the 1980 Census data: Zone 1 - 25,399 total population
81.50% black
Zone 2 - 25,295 total population
68.90% black
Zone 3 - 25,210 total population
7.83% black
Zone 4 - 24,844 total population
2.96% black
Zone 5 - 25,016 total population
18.30% black
Zone 6 - 25,107 total population
17.30% black
Zone 7 - 25,043 total population
14.10 black. In adopting the above zones in 1986, the court found that the "seven (7) contiguous zones with comparable populations comports with the one-man one-vote principle required by the constitution" and that "the Little Rock School District's redistricting plans are in compliance with the mandate of 2 of the Voting Rights Act (codified as 42 U.S.C. 1973) and does not abridge or deny the right of minorities to vote." See document 719
Charles Exhibit 13. 5. After the filing of this complaint, all the parties agreed that the 1986 plan was not in compliance with the one-man one-vote principle when judged by the 1990 census figures. The Court postponed the September 1992 school board elections and directed the PCBE to determine whether the zones were out of compliance with -3-the one-man one-vote principle and to redraw the lines if necessary.' 6. The PCBE, through the Pulaski County judge, commissioned the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission ("Metroplan") , a governmental planning and research organization composed of local government entities in the Central Arkansas area, to address the issue and to devise a remedial plan if necessary. The PCBE instructed Metroplan to examine the one-man one-vote issue and draw three or four alternate plans, keeping the zones compact and contiguous and as close to the present zones as possible in order to support stability in the LRSD. 7. The PCBE determined that the 1986 plan should be used as the starting point for any new plan. It did not instruct Metroplan on the voting rights issue because it understood that the 1986 plan was in compliance with the Voting Rights Act. 8. Mr. Jim McKenzie, executive director of Metroplan, contacted Mr. James R. Lynch, a senior research specialist at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock's Arkansas Institute of Government, and requested additional criteria that should be considered in rezoning cases. Mr. Lynch provided him with a two-page summary which Mr. McKenzie used in developing the alternative plans presented to the PCBE. The factors listed by Mr. Lynch were: adherence to the one- man onevote doctrine
avoidance of diluting minority political expression
compact and contiguous districts
recognizable district 'The Court also postponed the PCBE Zone 5 election. -4-boundaries
and use of existing political boundaries. Charles Exhibit 24. 9. The Metroplan staff drafted four proposed zoning plans and Mr. McKenzie reviewed the plans to see if they met Mr. Lynch's criteria. Mr. McKenzie presented the proposals to the PCBE at a public meeting on November 6, 1992. The PCBE then held two public hearings on November 30, 1992 and December 7, 1992 to answer questions about the plan revisions. Charles Exhibits 9 and 10. 10. During the public hearings, the issue of a third majority black district was raised. Mr. John W. Nagel, Jr. presented a plan he had drawn up for the Charles plaintiffs which included three majority black districts. Mr. McKenzie testified that Metroplan could have drawn a plan with three majority black zones but the criteria of compactness and minimum change in present zones would have been sacrificed. 11. On December 29, 1992, at a specially called meeting, the PCBE selected Metroplan's Proposal No. 4 as its plan for bringing the present zones into compliance. The vote was three to one, with the three white members voting for Proposal No. 4 and the one black member voting against it. Charles Exhibit 12. 12. Mr. McKenzie testified that Proposal No. 4 looks more to the future in terms of growth and shifts in population than the other proposals. In Proposal No. 4, the areas of the City of Little Rock ^The Charles plaintiffs argue that the PCBE did not legally adopt Metroplans Proposal No. 4 but merely voted to submit it to the Court, thereby abandoning its duty to adopt a plan. The Court Ends that the PCBE adopted Proposal No. 4 pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-607. -5-that are projected for growth have a negative variance from the mean while the areas that are projected to lose population have positive variance. a 13. On February 16, 1993, the PCBE submitted its approved plan to the Court, and the Charles plaintiffs filed objections to the plan. 14. There was no racially discriminatory motive. intent. or purpose involved in the adoption by the PCBE of the districting plan at issue in this case. The Charles plaintiffs presented no evidence from which this Court can conclude that the plan adopted by the PCBE was the result of purposeful racial discrimination. The PCBE adopted its plan after two public hearings at which the merits of the various plans before the PCBE were discussed. The plan eventually adopted by the PCBE was drawn according to generally accepted criteria provided by the Charles plaintiffs' expert in this case, Mr, Lynch. 15. The City of Little Rock is approximately 65% white and 34% black. Charles Exhibit 25. The voting age population of the City of Little Rock is approximately 70% white and 29% black. Charles Exhibit 26. coterminous. The City of Little Rock and the LRSD are nearly The significant exceptions are the Granite Mountain area, which is a predominantly black area within the City of Little Rock but not within the LRSD, and Cammack Village, a predominantly white area which is within the LRSD but not within the City of Little Rock. 16. The plan adopted by the PCBE has the following characteristics: -6-Zone 1 - 25,533 total population
79.82% black
Zone 2 - 25,764 total population
59.39% black
Zone 3 - 24,578 total population
4.52% black
Zone 4 - 24,216 total population
5.12% black
Zone 5 - 24,456 total population
19.14% black
Zone 6 - 24,663 total population
35.55% black
Zone 7 - 24,464 total population
28.45% black. See Attachment A. 17. The plan presented by the Charles plaintiffs has the following characteristics: Zone 1 - 23,704 total population
64.7% black
Zone 2 - 24,870 total population
64.0% black
Zone 3 - 24,230 total population
5.3% black
Zone 4 - 25,380 total population
5.1% black
Zone 5 - 23,839 total population
8.7% black
Zone 6 - 25,635 total population
61.7% black
Zone 7 - 26,016 total population
25.8% black. See Attachment B. 18. The plan proposed by the Charles plaintiffs does not conform to the standard proposed by their expert, Mr. Lynch, that the zones be compact and contiguous. 19. There are no significant barriers to participation in the political process in the LRSD. In order to run for the LRSD Board The Court notes that the plan filed as Plaintiffs Exhibit A with the Charles plaintiffs "Objections, Response and Memorandum Regarding the Court s Order of February 16, 1993," (doc. #1762) has the same boundary lines as Attachment B but some of the zones are numbered differently. (See Attachment C.) -7-of Directors, a candidate is required to gather twenty signatures on a petition. Ark. Code Ann. 6-14-111 (Michie 1991) . There is no filing fee. There was no testimony that there exist any legal barriers to participation in the political process by black candidates. 20. No evidence was presented to show that black citizens have less opportunity to participate in the political process under the plan adopted by the PCBE than they do under the present plan. Mr. Lynch, expert witness for the Charles plaintiffs, testified that the opportunity for black citizens to participate in the political process is the same under the present plan and the plan adopted by the PCBE. 21. Black citizens do not have less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice under the plan adopted by the PCBE than they do under the present plan. Mr. Lynch testified that the opportunity for black citizens to elect representatives of their choice is the same under the plan adopted by the PCBE and the present plan. 22. In Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), the Supreme Court referred to factors listed in the Senate Judiciary Committee report accompanying the 1982 amendments to 2 of the Voting Rights Act as being relevant to a 2 claim. The Court makes the following findings in accordance with those factors: A. The extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political subdivision that touched the right of the members of the minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise to participate in the democratic process. -8-While the Charles plaintiffs presented no evidence of a history of official discrimination, the Court will take judicial notice that there has been a history of official discrimination in voting. Jeffers v. Clinton, 730 F. Supp. 196, 210 (E.D.Ark. 1989). The Charles plaintiffs presented no evidence, other than demographic information which shows socio-economic differences between blacks and whites, that the history of official discrimination in Arkansas has resulted in black citizens having less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice under the plan proposed by the PCBE. This demographic evidence does not prove or disprove that the district lines drawn in 1986 or 1992 resulted in blacks having less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The history of official discrimination is remote in time to the preparation of the PCBE plan and will therefore be given little weight. B. The extent to which voting in the elections of the state or political subdivision is racially polarized. The evidence presented by the Charles plaintiffs tends to indicate that black voters constitute a politically cohesive unit. Mr. Lynch showed that a significant number of minority group members usually vote for the same candidates. He presented evidence of a correlation between black voting age population and the percentage of votes received by black candidates. The Charles plaintiffs failed to prove that white bloc voting normally will defeat the combined strength of minority support plus -9-any white cross-over vote for black candidates. The evidence was insufficient to show that white voters tend to group together to defeat black candidates. The evidence indicates that black candidates have achieved considerable success against white candidates. Charles Exhibits 32 and 33 show ten elections (nine at large
one zone) since 1986 in which black candidates opposed white candidates. In six of those elections, the black candidate was successful. Only two of the elections involved the LRSD. In both the at-large 1986 LRSD race and the LRSD Zone 2 1989 race, the black candidate defeated the white candidate. In the 1988 race for municipal judgeship in the City of Little Rock, the black candidate was successful. The black candidates were also a successful in three of the seven at-large elections for a position on the Little Rock City Board of Directors. Charles Exhibit 35 shows the results of twenty-five elections between 1962 and 1992 in which black candidates sought positions on the Little Rock City Board of Directors. The black candidates were successful in ten of those elections. The Court finds that there does not exist in Little Rock a sufficient white bloc vote to usually defeat the candidate preferred by minority voters. Although there was some evidence that a significant number of minority group members usually vote for the same candidate, the Court finds that legally significant racially polarized voting does not exist in the City of Little Rock or the LRSD. -10-C. The extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, anti-single shot provisions, or other voting practices or procedures that may enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group. There is no evidence that the LRSD has adopted any practice or procedure that may enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group. The State of Arkansas has adopted a majority vote requirement which applies to school district elections. Ark. Code Ann. 6-14-121 (Michie 1991). There is no evidence that the majority vote requirement has had any impact on the success or failure of any black candidate in a school district election. D. If there is a candidate slating process, whether the members of the minority group have been denied access to that process. The process of slating plays no part in races for the LRSD Board of Directors. Nominations are not made by committee or convention. Anyone who wants to run simply files as an individual in the election. There is no filing fee. A petition signed by twenty qualified registered voters is sufficient to get a candidate on the ballot. Mr. Bill Hamilton and Mr. Thomas Broughton, both of whom are black and have been elected to the LRSD Board of Directors, testified that there are no impediments to ballot access. Mr. Lynch testified that the "white power structure" throws its support to certain candidates. This does not constitute slating as that term has been used by the courts in considering the Senate factors. See, e.g. Jeffers, 730 F.Supp. at 212. -11-E. The extent to which members of the minority group in the state or political subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process. Census data, which indicates that in the City of Little Rock blacks are poorer, less educated, have fewer vehicles, and have a higher percentage of households headed by single females than the general population, convinces the Court that minorities in the Little Rock area have suffered the disadvantages of past discrimination. Charles Exhibits 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. These socio-economic factors have an impact upon the ability of blacks to participate effectively in the political process. For example, while blacks comprise 34% of the population of Little Rock, they comprise only 29% of the voting age population. Mr. Lynch testified that blacks also suffer lower voter registration and lower voter turnout among registered voters than whites. F. Whether political campaigns have been characterized by overt or subtle racial appeals. The Charles plaintiffs presented no evidence of overt or subtle racial appeals in LRSD election campaigns. Mr. Bill Hamilton testified that in 1973 he actively supported a white school board candidate, Lucy Abraham, and that in 1983 he received wide support from the white community. G. The extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction. The Charles plaintiffs presented evidence of only two LRSD elections. Black candidates won them both. They presented evidence on one election for the position of municipal judge, and -12-that race was won by a black. As noted above under subparagraph B, the plaintiffs presented evidence of twenty-five elections for the position of Little Rock City Board of Directors from 1962 to 1992 in which black candidates participated. Black candidates won ten of the twenty-five races in which one or more blacks participated. Charles Exhibit 35. LRSD Exhibit 2 shows that in 1983 two black candidates ran at-large races for positions on the LRSD Board of Directors, each opposing a white candidate. Black candidates Bill Hamilton and Katherine Mitchell received 70% and 34% of the vote, respectively. According to LRSD Exhibit 5, Mr. Hamilton received 82% of the vote against white candidate Frederick Lee in the 1989 LRSD Zone 2 election. LRSD Exhibit 4 shows that white candidate Charles Young defeated black candidate Lawrence Hampton in the 1987 Zone 6 race by a slim margin, 250 to 218 votes. Zone 6 was then a 72% white zone. The percentage of black representation for at least the last ten years on both the LRSD Board of Directors and the City of Little Rock Board of Directors has been 28.5% compared with a citywide black population of 34% and a black voting age population of 28%. Mr. Hamilton testified that it only takes about 300 votes to win an election within the present LRSD election zones. His testimony is borne out by LRSD Exhibits 4 and 5. The minimum black population in an election zone in the plan adopted by the PCBE is 1,112. PCBE Exhibit 1, p. 2. The five most heavily black zones range from 4,681 to 20,380 black population. There exists in at -13-least five of the zones adopted by the PCBE, if not all of them, sufficient black population from which to draw the number of votes usually necessary to elect a black candidate to the LRSD Board of Directors. H. Whether there is a significant lack of responsiveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs of the minority group. Mr. Dale Charles, president of the Little Rock Chapter of the NAACP, testified that he had raised several issues at LRSD board meetings and had received no written response from the Board. However, there was no testimony that the Board usually provides a written response or that whites who presented issues to the Board received written responses. Mr. Charles admitted that he had never sought to discuss any LRSD issue with his zone representative, who is white. because he assumed his representative would be a antagonistic to him. Mr. Charles further testified that he had made presentations to the Board on several occasions. Dr. Mitchell and Mr. Hamilton testified generally that the Board was not as responsive as it could be to some issues of concern to the black community, but that any two members of the Board could call a public meeting to discuss any issue of concern to those two members. Board member Patricia Gee testified that she lives in a racially mixed neighborhood (her zone is presently 28.55% black) and that she works as hard to resolve issues brought to her by black constituents as she does to resolve issues brought to her by white constituents. -14-I. Whether the policy underlying the state or political subdivision's use of prerequisite to voting, procedure is tenuous. such or voting standard. qualification, practice or The Court finds that the adoption by the PCBE of the election zones prepared by Metroplan is not a practice that can be described as "tenuous." The starting point for the development of the plan adopted by the PCBE was a plan adopted by the court in 1986 which the court found to be in compliance with the Voting Rights Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Charles plaintiffs claim the 1986 redistricting plan violates the one-man one-vote principle and the Voting Rights Act. They also challenge the redistricting plan for the LRSD Board of Directors adopted by the PCBE, claiming it violates 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. This Court ordered the PCBE to develop a plan in light of the 1990 census to bring the LRSD districting plan into compliance with the one-man one-vote requirement of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. All of the parties agreed that the old plan, which had been in effect by order of Judge Henry Woods since December of 1986, was not in compliance with the one-man one-vote requirement when judged by the 1990 census information. Now that the PCBE has adopted a new districting scheme, the plaintiffs' allegations that -15-the 1986 plan violated the Voting Rights Act have become moot/ See Grove v. Emison, 507 U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 1075, 122 L.Ed.2d 388 (1993). 2. This Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the PCBE. The Supreme Court has held it is error for a federal district court not to defer to state efforts to redraw legislative districts. Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S. 113 S.Ct. 1149, 1157, 122 L.Ed.2d 500, 513, 61 U.S.L.W. 4199, 4202 (1993). See also Turner v. State of Arkansas, 784 F. Supp. 553, 573 (E.D.Ark. 1991), aff'd 119 L.Ed.2d 220 (1992). Therefore, this Court may not alter or amend the districting plan adopted by the PCBE absent finding a violation of federal law. 3 . In order to prevail on their claim that the new districting plan violates 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the plaintiffs must prove that they will have less opportunity under the plan adopted by the PCBE to participate in the political process and less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice than under the plan approved by Judge Woods in December of 1986. Chisom V. Roemer, 501 U.S. , 111 S.Ct. 2354, 2365, 115 L.Ed.2d 348, 364 (1991)
Turner, 784 F. Supp. at 589. In order to prevail on their constitutional claim, the plaintiffs must show that there existed a purposeful intent to discriminate on the part of the PCBE. City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980). Plaintiffs ^The issue of whether the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel preclude the Charles plaintiffs from challenging the 1986 plan was raised during these proceedings. The Court finds it unnecessary to address the issue because it determines that challenges to the 1986 plan are arguably moot but, as noted below, the Court will give effect to the 1986 plan as the law of the case. -16- have not met their burden as to either their 2 claim or their constitutional claim. 4. The PCBE is not required by the Voting Rights Act to create the maximum number of majority black districts. The Act is not an affirmative action statute, and it "is not violated by a state legislature simply because that legislature does not enact a districting plan that maximizes black political power and influence." Turner, 784 F. Supp. at 573. The Turner court explained: Congress did not intend to provide minority voters with the "maximum feasible minority voting strength." Singles, 478 U.S. at 94, 106 S. Ct. at 2789 (O'Connor, J., concurring). The maximum minority voting strength would be tantamount to proportional representation, which is expressly prohibited by the language of the statute. Turner, 784 F. Supp. at 577. The mandate of the Voting Rights Act is II you shall not harm" rather than "you shall help." Jeffers, 730 F. Supp. at 241 (Eisele, J., concurring and dissenting). Thus, the Voting Rights Act does not require the PCBE to create another majority black district. 5. In Jeffers, 730 F. Supp. at 2 05, the court discussed vote dilution claims in the single-member district context. It stated: If lines are drawn that limit the number of majorityblack single-member districts, and reasonably compact and contiguous majority-black districts could have been drawn, and if racial cohesiveness in voting is so great that, as a practical matter, black voters' preferences for black candidates are frustrated by this system of apportionment, the outlines of a Section 2 theory are made out. Whether such a claim will succeed depends on the particular factual context. including all of the factors that Thornburg^ Smith, and the legislative history of Section 2 say are relevant. -17-6. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973, as amended in 1982, provides: (a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color. or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b(f)(2) [of this title], as provided in subsection (b) [of this section]. 7. A violation of subsection (a) of this section is if, based upon the totality of the 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 (b) established if. have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is circumstance which may be considered: Provided, one That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population. It is clear that in order to prevail on their 2 claim. plaintiffs must prove both less opportunity to participate in the political process and less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. In Chisom, the Supreme Court stated: [T]he inability to elect representatives of their choice is not sufficient to establish a violation unless, under the totality of the circumstances, it can also be said that the members of the protected class have less opportunity to participate in the political process. The statute does not create two separate and distinct rights. * * * It would distort the plain meaning of the sentence to substitute the word "or II for the word "and. II Such radical surgery would be required to separate the opportunity to participate from the opportunity to elect. -18-Chisom, 501 U.S. at 111 S.Ct. at 2365, 115 L.Ed.2d at 364. See Turner, 784 F. Supp. at 574 n.2O. The Turner court provided guidance for determining whether a plaintiff will have "less opportunity" to participate: (I Less opportunity" by any fair interpretation means "less opportunity" than such black voters had immediately before the imposition or application of the challenged procedure
not "less opportunity" than they would have, had the legislature seized the opportunity to help them by maximizing their political influence. Turner, 784 F. Supp. at 573. 8. As previously noted, the Senate has identified a number of factors which may be relevant to a 2 claim: 1. the extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political subdivision that touched the right of the members of the minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise to participate in the democratic process
2. the extent to which voting in the elections of the state or political subdivisions is racially polarized
3. the extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large electi
This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.