Election zone

1 1 e F P 0 M J 0 H H W . tU W L K E P P . TO 6 214 7 P . 0 2 received SEP 1 5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS SEVEN ZONE PLAN Oiiice oi Desegregation Monitoring ZONE 1 367 intersects Interstate Begin at the point where Hwy. 3Q, Follow the Little Rock School District's southern boundary east to the Arkansas River then follow the river northwest to the drainage ditch under Cantrell Road at Gill Street thence west along straight l_..c Street a line intersecting the northern boundary of the Arkansas School for the Deaf then west to the end of Lee Avenue then follow a straight imaginary line due north to Fairfax At Fairfax Terrace go west to Martin Street Terrace. thence north on Martin to I, west on I to Midland, south on Midland to H, west on H to Oak, Kavanaugh, west on Kavanaugh to Walnut, south on Oak to south on Walnut to west Markham, east on West Markham to Elm, south on Elm to Interstate 630, east on 630 to Brown Street, south on Brown to 14th, east on 14th to Cross, south on Cross to Wright Avenue, east on Wright Avenue to Ringo, south on Ringo to Swagerty Creek, Swagerty creek south to Fouche Creek, Fouche Creek southwest to Interstate 30. ZONE 2 Begin at the intersection of Fouche Creek and Interstate 30 follow Fouche northwest to Swagerty Creek, Swagerty Creek north to Ringo, Ringo north to Wright Avenue, Wright Avenue west to Cross, Cross north to 14th, 14th west to Brown, Brown south to 22nd, 22nd west to Pine, Pine south to Asher, Asher southwest to 29th, 29th west to Washington, Washington north to 28th, 28th west to Adams, Adams north to 24th, 24th west to Filmore, Filraore north to 19th, 19th west to University Avenue, University south to 53rd Street, 53rd east to Geyer Springs, Geyer Springs north to Maureen Drive, Maureen Drive east to 50th, 50th east to Meyers, Meyers north to 49th, 49th east to Pike, Pike north to Fouche Creek, Fouche Creek east to the western boundary of Benny Craig Park, said boundary south to Rosemore, Rossmore southeast to Union Pacific Railroad Tracks, Tracks southeast to Koerner, Koerner east to Scott Hamilton, Scott Hamilton south to Interstate 30, 30 west to Geyer Springs, Geyer Springs south to Baseline, Baseline west to Verbena Drive, from there follow an imaginary line due south intersecting Warren Drive, Warren Drive south to Mabelvale Cutoff, Mabelvale Cutoff west to Chicot, Chicot south to the school district and also city limits boudary line, follow this boundary line northeast around a private airfield to the point of origin.0 1 1 F. 2 4 F R 0 M I 0 H n W . 1.1 P L K E P P . A . TO 2 14 7 P . 0 3 ZONE 3 Begin at the intersection Follow Brown street north of Brown and 22nd Street. to 1-630, 630 west to West Jonesboro, west Jonesboro south to I2t
n, 12th west to University, University north to 630 west to Mississippi, Mississippi south to Rodney Parham, Rodney Parham southeast to Kanis, Kanis west to Shackleford, West 12th, 630, Shackleford south to Panther Branch Creek, then follow an imaginary line due south to the northern end of Talley Road, then follow an imaginary line due west to west 44th street, 44th street east to Weldon, Weldon south to 46th, at 46th follow an imaginary line due south to Colonel Glenn, follow Colonel Glenn east to Barrow, follow Barrow north to 28th, 28th east to Boyle Park Road, Boyle Park southeast to Rock Creek, Rock Creek south then east to Colonel Glenn, Colonel Glenn east to University, University north to 19th, 19th east to Filmore, Filmore south to 24th, 24th east to Adams, Adams south to 28th, 28th east to Washington, Washington south to 29th, 29th east to Asher, Asher east to Pine, Pine north to 22nd, 22nd east to the point of origin. ZONE 4 Begin at the Intersection of Scott Hamilton and 1-30. Follow 1-30 west to Geyer Springs, Geyer Springs south to Baseline, Baseline west to Verbena then follow on imaginary line south intersecting Warren Drive, Warren Drive south to Mabelvale, Mabelvale west to Chicot, Chicot south to school district boundary, school district boundary southwest, then west, then around the Alexartder City limits. then north. east. then north southeast to 1-430, to McHenry then east. Creek, then north, then 430 south to Fouche Creek, McHenry Creek Fouche Creek northeast to University, University south to 53rd, 53rd east to Geyer Springs, Geyer Springs north to Maureen Drive, Maureen east to 50th, 50th east to Meyers, Meyers north to 49th, 49th east to Pike, Pike north to Fouche Creek, Fouche Creek east to the western boundary of Benny Craig Park, Benny Craig Park boundary south to Rosemore, Rosemore south to U.P. Railroad, Railroad south to Hoener, Hoener east to Scott Hamilton, Scott Hamilton south to the point of origin. ZONE 5 Begin at a point where McHenry Creek inters^ts the western most boundary of the school district. this boundary north to west Marldiam. Follow At this point follow an imaginary line north to Loyola Drive. At this point turn east on imaginary line to Napa Valley Drive, Napa Valley north to Hinson Road, Hinson east to an Green Mountain, Green Mountain south to Rainwood,I I f f I C? Cl ? I 1 i t F P 0 M J 0 H N 1.4 . W H L IC E P P . H . TO Rainwood east to Grassy Flat Creek, 2 14? P . 0 -I Grassy Flat Creek east to 1-430, 430 north to Rodney Parham, Rodney Parham southeast to Grassy Flat Creek, Grassy Flat Creek generally east to Reservoir Road, Reservoir north to the southern boundary of Reservoir Park, go east along the southern boundary of Reservoir Park to Windy Drive. Follow an imaginary line south at the intersection of Windy Drive and the southern boundary of Reservoir Park Follow Grassy Flat Creek south to to Grassy Flat creek. an imaginary point due east of Arrow Ridge Court. Go east along this imaginary line to Gillett Drive, north on Gillett to Leewood, east on Leewood to Mississippi, south on to Mississippi to Rodney Parham, south on Rodney Parkham Kanis, west on Kanis to Shackleford, south on Shackleford to at Panther Branch creek. Panther Branch Creek follow an imaginary line due south to the northern tip of Talley Road, at this point turn east, follow an imaginary line to the interesection of west Romine Road and 44th. Follow 44th east to Weldon and go south on Weldon to 46th, at this point. follow an imaginary line south to Colonel Glenn Road, go east on Colonel Glenn Road to Barrow Road, turn north on Barrow Road to 28th street, follow 28th east to Boyle Park Road, go south on Boyle Park Road to Rock Creek, follow Rock Creek south and then east to Colonel Glenn Road, go east on Colonel Glenn to University, then south on University to Fouche Creek, follow Fouche Creek generally southwest to Interstate 430, go north on 430 to McHenry Creek, then follow McHenry Creek west to the point of origin. ZONE 6 Begin at the intersection of the western school district boundary line and west Markham. Follow the boudary line generally northwest turning to the east along the Little Maumelle River, follow the Little Maumelle River to the Arkansas River, follow J imerson the Arkansas River to Jimerson Creek, Creek south to Keightley, follow Keightley south to Hwy. 10, follow Hwy. 10 west to the eastern boundary of Reservoir Park, follow this boundary south then east then south then west to Reservoir Road, follow Reservoir Road to stoney Flat Creek, follow Stoney Flat Creek southwest to Rodney Parham Road, follow Rodney Parham northwest to 1-430, 430 south to Stoney Flat Creek, Stoney Flat northwest to Rainwood Drive, follow Rainwood west to Green Mountain, Green Mountain north to Hinson Road, Hinson Road west to Nappa Valley, Nappa Valley south to Mara Lynn Road. At this point follow an imaginary line west to Loyola Drive, at this point follow an imaginary line south to the point of origin.1 1 F P 0 N J 0 H H 14 . M H L K E P P . w . TO 2 14 7 P . y 5 I ZONE 7 Begin at the intersection of Jimerson Creek and the Arkansas River, follow Jimerson Creek south to Keightley, 10, go west on Hwy, part south to the southetn^bo^^^^^^^^^^^ EeBe--t PatK^, 2 imaginary line south east along the an Windy Drive, at this point follow +-O fitonev Flat Creek, follow Stoney to Stoney Flat Creek Flat Creek south to imaginary point follow an due west of Lyric Lane, : Lane and Gillett an pon"- imaqinary line from this point to Lyric follow Leewood Drive, follow Gillett north to Leewood, to Mississippi, follow Mississippi south to ' ?S!oi%?0 eaVt i?Sni
Ky
follow university south to 12th street, follow 12th street east to West Jonesboro West Jonesboro north to 1-630, follow I 630 e^st follow Elm Street north to Markham, follow to Elm Street, follow L-...------ Markham west to Walnut, follow Walnut north to Kavanaugh, follow Oak north to H, follow Kavanaugh east to Oak, follow H east to Midland, follow Midland north to I Street, follow I east to Martin Street, follow Fairfax Terrace east to follow Martin south to Fairfax Terrace, Luxxv^ --- -- line perpendicular to the east end of Lee an imaginary line perpendicular to tne ease enu Street, follow this imaginary line south to the northern boundary of the Arkansas School for the Blind, follow the northern boundary of the School for the Blind to the eastern boundary of the School for the Blind, at this point follow an imaginary line east to Cantrell Road and follow Cantrell Road to the Gill Street at this at this point, bUi btreei Bridge, follow the drainage ditch under the Gill Street Bridge to the Arkansas River, northwest to the point of origin. follow the Arkansas River I 7 0 T w L P . ? 5 1a PT c? Pl p 1 /r63i 62,6 8 " (S, 4 Z IS71 8 ^L3 3 ) :r (9 7^ -z4/^7 ' 3, 7 4- :8 8'=^o 'Z I, 8 2 00 I o 2 -S(^ o<? ^Z.o 373 2 4-39d - 6 2 4^-r4 i- o, 7 Io 3 S 4.0 2, 47o f 2 r "^46 S'Siiz 3X I 11-74^T' I S'a IIReport to the Pulaski County Board of Education on Little Rock School Board Election Zones Metroplan November 4, 1992SUMMARY TABLES Existing Boundaries Proposals 1 through 4 ' yMl ^4Va^(^2. " H (uu) 1 w - c r% |W O/ik "Iv, i(^ y-OJlCURRENT DISTRICT BOUNDARIES CEIectdIst 1 2 j4 5 1 TotSD Totpop 20901 20415 24989 31057' 30810 22382 23120 173674 PopVor -3910 -4396 178 6246 5999 -2429 -1691 0 7oVar -15.76% -17.72% 0.72% 25.18% 24.18% -9.79% -6.81% 0.00% White 3194 4906 22107 28967 22974 15582 15159 112889 Ideal 24811 LRSD.XLS Block 17629 15306 2529 1550 7346 6390 7688 58438 %BP 84.35% 74.97% 10.12% 4.997o 23.84% 28.55% 33.25% 33.657o Other 78 203 353 540 490 410 273 2347 7.OP 0.37% 0.99% 1.41% 1.74% 1.59% 1.83% 1.18% 1.35% PROPOSAL#! Electdlstl 1 2 4 5 _6 7 TotSD Totpop 23710 24509 25229 25380 25319 24705 24822 173674 PopVor -1101 -302 418 569 508 -106 11 0 %Var -4.44% -1.22% 1.69%' 2.30% 2.05% -0.43% 0.05% 0.00% White 5201 7163 23772 23620 18978 16674 17481 112889 Block 18408 17097 1092 1296 5891 7585 7069 58438 %BP 77.64% 69.76% 4.33% 5.11% 23.27% 30.70% 28.48% 33.65% Other 101 249 365 464 450 446 272 2347 7oOP 0.43% 1.02% 1.45% 1.83% 1.78% 1.81% 1.10% 1.35% Ideal 24811 PROPOSAL #2 Electdlstl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TotSD Tot pop 25431 24479 25229 25380 25319 23714 24122 173674 PopVor 620 -332 418 569 508 -1097 -689 0 %Var 2.50% -1.34% 1.69% 2.30% 2.05%' -4.42% -2.78% 0.00% White 5321 7837 23772 23620 18978 14757 18604 112889 Block 20007 16320 1092 1296 5891 8592 5240 58438 /oBP 66.67% 4.33% 5.11% 23.27% 36.23% 21.72% 33.65% Other 103 322 365 464 450 365 278 2347 %OP 0.41% 1.32% 1.45% 1.837o 1.7Q% 1.54% 1.15% 1.35% Page 1LRSD.XLS Ideal 24811 PROPOSAL #3 Electdistl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TotSD Totpop 25533 24397 25091 23691 25339 25501 24122 173674 PopVar 722 -414 280 -1120 528 690 -689 0 %Var 2.917o -1.67% 1.13% -4.51% 2.13% 2.78% -2.78% 0.00% White 5018 9083 23646 22201 18908 15429 18604 112889 Black 20380 14973 1116 1064 5979 9686 5240 58438 %BP 79.82% 61.37% 4.45% 4.49% 23.60% 37.98% 21.72% 33.65% Other 135 341 329 426 452 386 278 2347 %OP 0.53% 1.40% 1.31% 1.80% 1.78% 1.51% 1.15% 1.35% Ideal 24811 PROPOSAL #4 Electdistl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TotSD Totpop 25533 25764 24578 24216 24456 24663 24464 173674 PopVar 722 953 -233 -595 -355 -148 -347 0 7oVar 2.91% 3.84% -0.94% -2.40% -1.43% -0.59% -1.40% 0.00% White 5018 10084 23161 22518 19325 15550 17233 112889 Black 20380 15300 1112 1239 4681 8767 6959 58438 7oBP 79.82% 59.39% 4.52% 5.12% 19.14% 35.55% 28.45% 33.65% Other 135 380 305 459 450 346 272 2347 %OP 0.53% 1.47% 1.24% 1.90% 1.84% 1.40% 1.11% 1.35% Ideal 24811 Page 2n 725B-O CURRENT DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Record _______ _______72 ______ 53 ______ ______ _______W _______ _______55 _______7_^ 79 7^ _______ 58 _______7^ 46 ______ ______ ______64 102 ______ ______ 54 49 ______50 44 57 _____13 _____12 _____15 _____12 34 24 33 40 vpdlst 557K 567J 657H 6671 687D-O 687J-a 687K 697G 957B 957E 957H 9571 957K 967C 967D 997A 4751 476J-a 486K-a 5661-0 567J-a 587L 686A 687B 687C 687D 687J 2461 246J-a 246K 246L 3751 3751-0 475B 475H 475H-b 4751-0 total jx>p _______277 2406 609 3724 _______ 357 2579 _______112 2786 1546 _________0 501 1536 2455 600 1126 1738 276 522 321 968 1539 3454 4559 3081 2236 1721 609 1400 __ 3274 1426 _______252 261 1058 1686 736 680 white pop ___1^ 22 52 1065 ___0 ___5 81 34 193 13 0 12 1071 584 25 36 998 260 487 90 320 75 1486 494 296 280 120 606 1390 3136 1352 243 261 982 1635 677 649 blackjsop ________276 2377 ________556 2637 ________ ________ 2489 77 2583 _______1532 __________0 489 458 _______1855 ________ 1087 ________ 11 _________28 ________ ________ _______1^ 1922 4060 2770 1943 1599 __________0 __________3 111 _________ __________4 __________0 _________ 15 48 13 %BP 99.64% 98.79% 91.30% 70.81% 100.00% 98.60% 96.51% 68.75% 92.71% 99.09% #DIV/0! 97.60% 29.82% 75.56% 95.67% 96.54% 39.30% 3.99% 5.36% 66.98% 63.33% 95.00% 55.65% 89.05% 89.91% 86.90% 92.91% 0.00% 0.21% 3.39% 4.70% 1.59% 0.00% 6.33% 0.89% 6.52% 1.91% VP.XLS other_pop 0 7 1 22 ________0 0 9 1 10 1 ________0 0 7 ________16 1 3 57 ________5 _________7 16 35 ________2 _______ 5 15 13 2 ________3 1 _______ _________1_ ________5 ________0 ________9 36 11 18 %OP 0.00% 0.29% 0.16% 0.59% 0.00% 0.00% 0.35% 0.89% 0.36% 0.06% #DIV/0! 0.00% 0.46% 0.65% 0.17% 0.27% 3.28% 1.81% 1.34% 4.98% 3.62% 0.13% 1.33% 0.11% 0.49% 0.58% 0.12% 0.49% 0.50% 0.82% 0.49% 1.98% 0.00%' 0.85% 2.14% 1.49% 2.65% celdist 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 ? 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 _3 3 20901 -3910 -15.76% 20415 -4396 -17.72% 3194 4906 17629 15306 84.35% 78 0.37% 74.97% 203 0.99% Page 1VP.XLS 30 35 27 103 41 29 105 42 100 43 1 2 3 28 4 10 5 12 9 14 18 & 19 6 32 7 16 23 31 86 36 39 48 20 22 25 26 38 476C 476D 476E 476E-a 476F 476G 476G-a 676E 687D-b 687F 135E 135J 245A 245G 246B 246C 246D 246E 246H 2461-a 246J 246L-a 275F 355A 355H-a 356B 475A 475B-a 475H-a 1251 135G 245G-a 335E '335J 355C 355D 355F |355G 355H 1974 1565 1747 866 2628 1004 1880 329 100 1514 50 5709 2415 1689 2103 1850 1757 4222 828 182 1323 7 140 2203 1164 2211 1624 1267 313 2365 535 640 2088 1615 1480 3230 3196 2801 1669 1914 1506 1625 623 1675 749 1700 174 57' 1153 50 5110 2236 1419 2053 1804 1717 3837 825 182 1218 7 139 2148 1102 2126 1596 1085 313 2232 499 604 1965 1496 1391 2957 2783 2565 1489 23 40 107 240 912 216 124 149 41 349 0 460 138 232 24 28 14 282 0 0 89 0 1 22 57 43 9 151 0 119 25 29 89 80 52 201 329 198 144 1.17% 2.56% 6.12% 27.71% 34.70% 21.51% 6.60% 45.29% 41.00% 23.05% 0.00% 8.06% 5.71% 13.74% 1.14% 1.51% 0.80% 6.68% 0.00% 0.00% 6.73% 0.00% 0.71% 1.00% 4.90% 1.94% 0.55% 11.92% 0.00% 5.03%' 4.67% 4.53% 4.26%| 4.95% 3.51% 6.22% 10.29% 7.07% 8.63% 37 19 15 3 41 39 6 12 0 139 41 38 26 18 26 103 3 0 16 0 0 33 5 42 19 31 0 14 11 7 34 39 37 72 84 38 36 1.87% 1.21% 0.86% 0.35% 1.56% 3.88% 2.98% 1.82% 2.00% 0.79% 0.00% 2.43% 1.70% 2.25% 1.24% 0.97% 1.48% 2.44% 0.36% 0.00% 1.21% 0.00% 0.00% 1.50% 0.43% 1.90% 1.17% 2.45% 0.00% 0.59% 2.06% 1.09% 1.63%, 2.41% 2.50%' 2.23% 2.63% 1.36% 2.16% 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 24989 178 0.72% 22107 2529 10.12% 353 1.41% Page 2 31057 6246 25.18% 28967 1550 4.99% 540 1.74%VP.XLS 21 71 52 59 65 59 93 101 101 94 70 68 11 81 92 69 88 84 91 82 87 99 85 ' 80 90 100 95 18 91 83 98 96 356B-a 535D 555A 565B 565C 725A 725B 726E-a 726K-a 526 476J 486K 565E 566G 566H 5661 7171 726F 756G 757H _ 956F 957G 725B-O 726D 726E 726J 726K 166C 816B 817C 817D 826A I 784 313 3533 1787 3435 785 550 _____0 4 45 564 1359 3045 1964 2125 1370 1103 3143 3852 1837' 1402 573
___24 926 3227 4007 2073 ____24 4011 3999 1846 2983 173674 704 266 1391 672 868 543 545 0 4 45 428 903 1567 1704 1658 704 959 2773 2723 1130 619 369 ____23 530 2361 3465 1536 _____8 2611 1749 903 1973 112889 ___ 44 2092 1094 2543 239 ____3 0 ___g ___g 127 410 1422 242 446 607 128 321 1084 670 737 196 ___g 385 842 492 507 ___16 1342 2205 925 974 58438 8.29% 14.06% 59.21% 61.22% 74.03% 30.45% 0.55% #DIV/0! 0.00% 0.00% 22.52% 30.17% 46.70% 12.32% 20.99% 44.31% 11.60% 10.21% 28.14% 36.47% 52.57% 34.21% 0.00% 41.58% 26.09% 12.28% 24.46% 66.67% 33.46% 55.14% 50.11% 32.65% 33.65% 15 3 50 21 24 3 2 0 ___0 ___0 9 46 56 18 21 59 16 49 45 37 46 ___8 ___1_ 11 24 50 30 ___0 58 45 __18 36 2347 1.91% 0.96% 1.42% 1.18% 0.70% 0.38% 0.36% #DIV/0! 0.00% 0.00% 1.60% 3.38% 1.84% 0.92% 0.99% 4.31% 1.45% 1.56% 1.17% 2.01% 3.28% 1.407o 4.17% 1.19% 0.74% 1.25% 1.45% 0.00% 1.45% 1.13% 0.98% 1.21% 1.35% 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 _5 6 6 6 6 _6 _6 6 _6 _6 6 7 J_ 1 1_ 1 7 J_ 1 1 1 30810 5999 24.18% 22974 7346 23.84% 490 1.59% 24811 Page 3 22382 -2429 -9.79% 15582 6390 28.55% 410 1.83% 23120 -1691 -6.81% 173674 15159 112889 76881 33.25% 58438 273 2347 1.18%VP.XLS Proposal #1 Record ______103 75 ______ ______ ______ 53 ______ 42 51 100 ______ ______ ____ ______ _______ _______ _______ 7^ _______ _______ _______73 46 ____ 41 ______ M ______ ______ ______ M ______ ______ M ______ 57 _______ 5 _______ 9 ______ 13 14 vpdist 476E-a 557K 567J 657H 6671 676E 687D-a 687D-b 687F 687J-a 687K 691Q 957E 957H 9571 957K 967C 967D 4751 476F 476J-a 486K-a 565B 567J-a 587L 686A 687B' 687C 687D 687J 246D 246H '2461 '2461-a' total_pop I 1 866 277 2406 609 3724 329 287 100 1514 357 2579 112 2786 1546 ___ 0 501 1536 2455 600 1126 1738 2628 276 522 1787 968 1539 3454 4559 3081 2236 1721 1757 828 609 182 white_pop ________ 1 _________22 52 1065 174 0 _________ 1153 5 ______ 81 34 193 _________ 13 0 _________ 12 _______1071 ________584 ________ 25 ________ 36 _______ 998 1675 _______ 487 672 ________320 75 1486 494 ________296 280 120 1717 825 606 182 black_pop ________ 276 2377 ________ 2637 149 287 _________ 41_ ________ ________ 352 2489 77 2583 1532 0 ________ ________ _______ 1855 ________ 1087 ________ 912 ______ n 28 1094 ________ 613 1462 _ 1922 4060 2770 1943 1599 _________ 14 __________ 0 0 0 %BP 27.71% 99.64% 98.79% 91.30% 70.81% 45.29% 100.00% 41.00% 23.05% 98.60% 96.51% 68.75% 92.71% 99.09% #DIV/0! 97.60% 29.82% 75.56% 95.67% 96.54% 39.30% 34.70% 3.99% 5.36% 61.22% 63.33% 95.00% 55.65% 89.05% 89.91% 86.90% 92.91% 0.80% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% other_pop 3 07 1 22 6 ________ 0 ________ 2 _____ 12 ________ 0 ________ 91 10 _________1_ 0 ________ 0 ________ 7_ 16 ______ 1 ________ 3 _______ 41 ________ 5 7 _______ 35 2 _______ 5 _____ 15 13 2 _______ ________ 3 ________ 3 0 %OP 0.35% 0.00% 0.29% 0.16% 0.59% 1.82% 0.00% 2.00% 0.79% 0,00% 0.35% 0.89% 0.36% 0.06% #Dh//0! 0.00% 0.46% 0.65% 0.17% 0.27% 3.28% 1.56% 1.81% 1.34% 1.18% 3.62% 0.13% 1.33% 0.11% 0.49% 0.58%' 0.12% 1.48% 0.36% 0.49% 0.00% eldistl 1 1 1 111 1 1 11 11 2 1 111 1 1 1 2 2 222 2 22 2 22 2 23 23 23710 -1101 -4.44% 5201 18408 77.64% 101 0.43% Page 4 24509 -302 -1.22% 7163 17097 69.76% 249 1.02% i B B VP.XLS 18 17 15 11 8 34 24 23 33 31 40 30 35 27 29 105 12 3 28 4 10 12 19 6 32 7 16 37 36 39 48 20 22 25 26 38 246J 246J-a 246K 246L 246L-a 3751 3751-a 475B__ 475B-O 475H 475H-a 475H-b 4751-a 476C 476D 476E 476G 476G-O 135E 135J 245A 245G 246B 246C 246E 275F 355A ~ 355H-a 356B 475A 135G ' 245G-a '335E 335J 355C '355D 355F '355G '355H 1323 1400 3274 1426 ___ 7 252 261 1058 1267 1686 313 736 680 1974 1565 1747 1004 1880 50 5709 2415 1689 2103 1850 4222 140 2203 1164 2211 1624 535 640 2088 1615 1480 3230 3196 2801 1669 1218 1390 3136 1352 ___ 7 243 261 982 1085 1635 313 677 649 1914 1506 1625 749 1700 50 5110 2236 1419 2053 1804 3837 139 2148 1102 2126 1596 499 604 1965 1496 1391 2957 2783 2565 1489 &9 3 111 61 04 0 67 151 15 0 48 13 23 40 107 216 124 0 460 138 232 24 28 2821 22 57 43 __ 9 25 29 89 80 52 201 329 198 144 0.21%' 3.39%' 4.70%' 0.00% 1.59%' 0.00% 6.33% 11.92% 0.89% 0.00% 6.52% 1.91% 1.17% 2.56% 6.12% 21.51% 6.60% 0.00% 8.06% 5.71% 13.74% 1.14% 1.51% 6.68% 0.71% 1.00% 4.90% 1.94% 0.55% 4.67% 4.53% 4.26% 4.95% 3.51% 6.22% 10.29% 7.07% 8.63% 16 7 27' 7 __o' 5 09 31 36 0 11 18 37 19 15 39 56 0 139 41 38 26 18 103 0 33 5 42 19 11 1 34 39 72 84 38 36 1.21% 0.50% 0.82%' 0.49% 0.00%' 1.98%' 0.00% 0.85% 2.45% 2.14% 0.00% 1.49% 2.65% 1.87% 1.21% 0.86% 3.88% 2.98% 0.00% 2.43% 1.70% 2.25% 1.24% 0.97% 2.44% 0.00% 1.50% 0.43% 1.90% 1.17% 2.06% 1.09% 1.63% 2.41% 2.50% 2.23% 2.63% 1.36% 2.16% 1 3 3' 3' 2 2 3' 3 33 3 _3 2 2 2 2 24 4 4444 4444 4 4 55 55 5 5 5 5 5 25229 418 1.69%' 23772 1092 4.33% 365 1.45% Page 5 25380 569 2.30% 23620 1296 5.11% 464 1.83% VP.XLS 21 71 52 65 94 70 68 77 81 92 69 102 88 84 91 82 98 87 99 86 89 93 85 80 90 101 100 95 101 78 97 83 96 356B-O 535D 555A 565C 526 476J 486K 565E 566G 566H 5661 5661-a 7171 726F 726F-a 156G 156G-Q 817D 956F 957G 1251 725A 725B 725B-a 726D 726E 726E-a 726J 726K 726K-a 766C 816B 817C 826A 784 313 3533 3435 45 564 1359 3045 1964 2125 1370 321 1103 1778 1365 3581 271 1837 2002 1402 573 2365 785 550 24 926 3227 0 4007 2073 4 24 4011 3843 2983 173674' 704 266 1391 868 45 428 903 1567 1704 1658 704 90 959 1637 1136 2527 196 1130 1002 619 369 2232 543 545 23 530 2361 0 3465 1536 4 8 2611 1650 1973 112889 65 44 2092 2543 ____ 0 127 410 1422 242 446 607 215 128 113 208 1010 74 670 980 737 196 119 239 3 0 385 842 0 492 507 0 16 1342 2150 974' 58438' 8.29% 14.06% 59.21% 74.03% 0.00% 22.52% 30.17% 46.70% 12.32% 20.99% 44.31% 66.98% 11.60% 6.36% 15.24% 28.20% 27.31% 36.47% 48.95% 52.57% 34.21% 5.03% 30.45% 0.55% 0.00% 41.58% 26.09% #DIV/0! 12.28% 24.46% 0.00% 66.67% 33.46% 55.95% 32.65% 33.65% 15 3 50 24 09 46 56 18 21 59 16 16 28 21 44 1 37 20 46 8 14 321 11 24 0 50 30 0 0 58 43 36 2347 1.91% 0.96% 1.42% 0.70% 0.00%, 1.60% 3.38% 1.84% 0.92% 0.99% 4.31% 4.98% 1.45% 1.57% 1.54% 1.23% 0.37% 2.01% 1.00% 3.28% 1.40% 0.59% 0.38% 0.36% 4.17% 1.19% 0.74% #DIV/0! 1.25% 1.45% 0.00% 0.00% 1.45% 1.12% 1.21% 1.35% 5 5 5 5 6 6 66 6 6 6 666 66 66 6677777 77 777 17 1 1 25319 508 2.05% 18978 5891 23.27% 450 1.78% 24811 I Page 6 24705 -106 -0.43% 16674 7585 30.70% 446 1.81% 24822 11 0.05% 17481 7069 28.48% 272 1.10% 173674 112889 58438 2347 3 S S VP.XLS I Proposal #2 Record 103 ______ ______ 72^ ______ 56 ______ 53 42 51 100 ______ ______ ______ ______ W 45 55 _______7_^ 7^ 76 ______ ______ M 7^ ______ ______ 47 ______ !_ 62 ______ M ______ ______ 69 102 ______ ______ ______ 54 ______ 49 ______ M 44 _______ 5 9 vpdlst 476E-a 557K 567J 657H 6671 676E 687D-a 687D-b 687F 687J 687J-Q 687K 697G 957B 957E 957H 9571 957K 961C 967D A15\ A,76? A76^-a 486K-a 565B 5661 5661-0 567J-a 587L 686A 687B 6Q7C 687D 246D 246H total_pop 866 277 2406 609 3724 329 287 _______ 100 1514 1721 357 2579 112 2786 1546 0 501 1536 2455 600 1126 1738 2628 276 _______ 522 1787 1370 321 _______ 968 1539 3454 4559 3081 2236 1757 828 .. white_pop ________ 1 22 ________ 52 1065 174 0 57 1153 ________120 _________ 5 ________ 8i 34 193 _________13 0 12 _______1071 _______ ________ 25 ________ 998 _______1^ 260 _______ 487 672 704 _________90 320 75 1486 _______ _______ 296 280 _______1717 825 black_pop ________ 276 _______ 2377 ________ 556 2637 149 ________ 287 _________ 41_ ________W 1599 ________ 352 2489 77 2583 _______ 1532 o' 489 ________ 1855 ________ 574 1087 ________ 912 11 _________ 28 _______ 1094 607 215 ________ _______ 1462 _______ 1922 4060 2770 1943 _________ 14 0 %BP 27.71% 99.64% 98.79% 91.30% 70.81% 45.29% 100.00% 41.00% 23.05% 92.91% 98.60% 96.51% 68.75% 92.71% 99.09% #DIV/0! 97.60% 29.82% 75.56% 95.67% 96.54% 39.30% 34.70% 3.99% 5.36% 61.22% 44.31% 66.98% 63.33% 95.00% 55.65% 89.05% 89.91% 86.90% 0.80% 0.00% olher_pop ________ 3 07 1 22 6 0 ________ 2 _______ 12 2 ________ 0 ________ 9 1 10 1 ________ 0 0 ________ 7 16 ________ 1_ ________ 3 67 41 5 7 21 59 16 35 2 46 ________ 5 _______ 15 13 _______ 26 3 7oOP 0.35% 0.00% 0.29% 0.167o 0.59% 1.82% 0.00% 2.00% 0.79% 0.12% 0.00% 0.35% 0.89% 0.36% 0.06% #DIV/0! 0.00% 0.46% 0.65% 0.17% 0.27% 3.28% 1.56% 1.81% 1.34% 1.18% 4.31% 4.98% 3.62% 0.13% 1.33% 0.11% 0.49% 0.58% 1.48% 0.36% eldist2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 11 1222 22 22 2 2 22 22 3 3 25431 620 2.50% 24479 -332 -1.34% 5321 7837 20007 16320 78.67% 103 0.41% 66.67% 322 1.32% Page 7 VP.XLS 13 14 18 17 15 11 8 34 24 23 33 31 40 30 35 27 29 1051 2 3 28 4 10 12 19 6 32 7 16 37 36 39 48 20 22 25 2461 2461-0 246J ,246J-a 246K 246L 246L-a 3751 3751-0 475B 4758-0 475H 475H-O 475H-b 4751-0 476C 476D 476E 476G 476G-a 135E 135J 245A 245G 2468 246C 246E 275F 355A 355H-a 3568 475A 135G 245G-O 335E 335J 355C 355D 355F 609 182 1323 1400 3274 1426 7 252 261 1058 1267 1686 313 736 680 1974 1565 1747 1004 1880 50 5709 2415 1689 2103 1850 4222 140 2203 1164 2211 1624 535 640 2088 1615 1480 3230 3196 606 182 1218 1390 3136 1352 7 243 261 982 1085 1635 313 677 649 1914 1506 1625 749 1700 50 5110 2236 1419 2053 1804 3837 139 2148' 1102 2126 1596 499 604 1965 1496 1391 2957 2783 00 89 3 111 67 04 0 67 151 15 0 48 13 23 40 107 216 124 0 460 138 232 24 28 282 __ 1_ 22 67 43 9 25 29 89 80 52 201 329 0.00% 0.00% 6.73% 0.21% 3.39% 4.70% 0.00% 1.59% 0.00% 6.33% 11.92% 0.89% 0.00% 6.52% 1.91% 1.17% 2.56% 6.12% 21.51% 6.60% 0.00% 8.06% 5.71% 13.74% 1.14% 1.51% 6.68% 0.71% 1.00% 4,90% 1.94% 0.55%' 4.67% 4.53% 4.26% 4.95% 3.51% 6.22% 10.29% 3 0 16 7 27 7 0 5 0 9 31 36 0 11 18 19 15 39 56 0 139 41 38 26 18 1030 33 5 42 19 11 7 34 39 37 77 84 0.49% 0.00% 1.21% 0.50% 0.82% 0.49% 0.00% 1.98% 0.00% 0.85% 2.45% 2.14% 0.00% 1.49% 2.65% 1.87% 1.21% 0.86% 3.88% 2.98% 0.00% 2.43% 1.70% 2.25% 1.24% 0.97% 2.44% 0.00% 1.50% 0.43% 1.90% 1.17% 2.06% 1.09% 1.63% 2.41% 2,50% 2.23% 2.63% 3 3 3 33 33 3 33 333 3 3 3 33 3 3 44444 444 4444 55 5 55 5 5 25229 418 1.69% 23772 1092 4.33% 365 1.45% Page 8 25380 569 2.30% 23620 1296 5.11% 464 1.83% VP.XLS 26 38 21 71 52 65 94 70 68 77 81 92 88 91 82 83 98 87 99 86 89 93 85 80 90| 101 84 100 95 101 78 97 96 355G 355H 356B-a 535D 555A 565C 526 476J 486K 565E 566G 566H 7171 756G 756G-a 757H 817C 817D 956F 957G 1251 725A 725B 725B-a 726D 726E 726E-a 726F 726F-a 726J 726K 726K-a 166<Z 816B 826A 2801 1669 784 313 3533 3435 45 564 1359 3045 1964 2125 1103 3581 271 1837 3999 1846 1402 573 2365 785 550 ____ 926 3227 0 1778 1365 4007 2073 4 24 4011 2983 173674 2565 1489 704 266 1391 868 45 428 903 1567 1704 1658 959 2527 196 1130 1749 903' 619 369 2232 543 545 23 530 2361 0 1637 1136 3465 1536 4 8 2611 1973 112889 198 144 65 44 2092 2543 0 127 410 1422 242 446 128 1010 74 670 2205 925 737 196 119 239' ____ 3 0 385 0 113 208 492 507 0 16 1342 974 58438 7.07% 8.63% 8.29% 14.06% 59.21% 74.03% 0.00%, 22.52% 30.17% 46.70% 12.32%! 20.99% 11.60%' 28.20% 27.31% 36.47% 55.14% 50.11% 52.57% 34.21% 5.03% 30.45% 0.55% 0.00% 41.58% 26.09% #DIV/0! 6.36% 15.24% 12.28% 24.46% 0.00% 66.67% 33.46% 32.65% 33.65% 38 36 15 3 50 24 0 9 46 56 18 21 16 44 1 37 45 18 __ 8 14 32 1 11 24 0 28 21 50 30 00 58 36 2347 1.36% 2.16% 1.91% 0.96% 1.42% 0.70% 0.00% 1.60% 3.38% 1.84% 0.92% 0.99% 1.45% 1.23% 0.37% 2.01% 1.13% 0.98% 3.28% 1.40% 0.59% 0.38% 0.36% 4.17% 1.19% 0.74% #DV/0! 1.57% 1.54% 1.25% 1.45% 0.00% 0.00% 1.45% 1.21% 1.35% 5 55 5 5 5 6 66 66 6 6 6 6 66 66 67 77 77 7 Tj 7| 7 7 7 1 1 J 1 25319 508 2.05% 18978 5891 23.27% 450 1.78% 24811 Page 9 23714 -1097 -4.42% 14757 8592 36.23% 365 1.54% 24122 -689 -2.78% 173674 18604 5240 21.72% 278 1.15% 112889 58438 2347 n 725B-fl I VP.XLS Proposal #3 Record 75 72 67 56 53 42 ____ 51 100 43 57 ______ 63 45 55 74 79 ______ 76 66 ______ 58 ______ 73 46 38 ______ 41 29 ______ 64 69 102 ______ 54 49 50 44 _______ 59 vpdist 557K 567J 567J-a 657 H 6671 676E 687D-O 687D-b 687F 687J 687J-a 687K 697G, 957B 957E 957H 9571 957K 961C. 967D 355H 4751 476F 476G 476J-a 486K-a 5661 5661-a 5871 686A 687 B 687C 687D 246D 246H total pop -+ - 277 2406 968 609 3724 329 287 100 1514 1721 357 2579 112 2786 1546 0 501 1536 2455 600 1126 1669 1738 2628 1004 276 522 1370 321 1539 3454 4559 3081 2236 1757 828 white pop 1 22 320 52 1065 174 0 57 1153 120 5 81 34 193 __ 13 0 __ 12^ 1071 584 25 36 1489 998 1675 749 260 487 704 90 75 1486 494 296 280 1717 825 black_pop 276 2377 613 556 2637 149 287 41 349 1599 352 2489 77 2583 1532 0 489 ________ 458 1855, 574' 1087 144 683 912 216 11 28 607 215 _______ 1^ 1922 4060 2770 1943 14 0 %BP 99.64% 98.79% 63.33% 91.30% 70.81% 45.29% 100.00% 41.00% 23.05% 92.91% 98.60% 96.51% 68.75% 92.71% 99.09% #DIV/0! 97.60% 29.82% 75.56% 95.67% 96.54% 8.63% 39.30% 34.70% 21.51% 3.99% 5.36% 44.31% 66.98% 95.00% 55.65% 89.05% 89.91% 86.90% 0.80% 0.00% otherjaop 0 7 35 1 22 6 0 2 12 2 0 91 10 1 0 07 16 1 3 _______ _______ 57 41 39 5 7 59 16 2 46 5 15 13 26 3 7oOP 0.00% 0.29% 3.62%, 0.16% 0.59% 1.82% 0.00% 2.00% 0.79% 0.12% 0.00%i 0.35% 0.89% 0.36% 0.06% #DIV/0! 0.00% 0.46% 0.65% 0.17% 0.27% 2.16% 3.28% 1.56% 3.88% 1.81% 1.34% 4.31% 4.98% 0.13% 1.33% 0.11% 0.49% 0.58% 1.48% 0.36% eldist3 11 1 1 111 11 1 1 11 1111111 12 22 222 2222 22 2 3 25533 722 2.91% 5018 20380 79.82% 135 0.53% Page 10 24397 -414 -1.67% 9083 14973 61.37% 341 1.40% VP.XLS 13 14 18 17 15 11 8 34 24 23 33 31 2461 2461-0 246J 246J-a 246K 246L 246L-a 3751 3751-0 475B 475B-a .7, ' 40 30 35 27 103 10512 34 10 12 19 6 32 1 16 37 28 36 59 48 20 22 25 475H 475H-a 475H-b 4751-0 476C 476D 476E 476E-a 476G-a 735E 135J 245A 246B 246C 246E 275F 355A 355H-a 356B 475A 135G 245G 245G-a 335E 335J 355C 355D 355F 609 182 1323 1400 3274 1426 ___ 7 252 261 1058 1267 1686 313 736 680 1974 1565 1747 866 1880 50 5709 2415 2103 1850 4222 140 2203 1164 2211 1624 535 1689 640 2088 1615 1480 3230 3196 606 182 1218 1390 3136 1352 ___ 7 243 261 982 1085 1635 ~ 313 611 649 1914 1506 1625 623 1700 50 5110 2236 2053 1804 3837 139 2148 1102 2126 1596 499 1419 604 1965 1496 1391 2957 2783 00 89 3 111 67 04 0 67 151 15 0 48 13 40 107 240 124 0 460 138 24 28 282 1 22 57 43 9 25 232 29 89 80 52 201 329 0.00% 0.00% 6.73% 0.21% 3.39% 4.70% 0.00% 1.59% 0.00% 6.33% 11.92% 0.89% 0.00% 6.52% 1.91% 1.17% 2.56% 6.12% 27.71% 6.60% 0.00% 8.06% 5.71% 1.14% 1.51% 6.68% 0.71% 1.00% 4.90% 1.94% 0.55% 4.67% 13.74% 4.53% 4.26% 4.95% 3.51% 6.22% 10.29% 3 0 16 7 21 1 0 5 09 31 36 0 11 18 ?,1 19 15 3 56 0 139 41 26 18 103 0 33 5 42 19 11 38 7 34 39 37 12 84 0.49% 0.00% 1.21% 0.50% 0.82% 0.49% 0.00% 1.98% 0.00% 0.85% 2.45% 2.14% 0.00% 1.49% 2.65% 1.87% 1.21% 0.86% 0.35% 2.98% 0.00% 2.43% 1.70% 1.24% 0.97% 2.44% 0.00% 1.50% 0.43% 1.90% 1.17% 2.06% 2.25% 1.09% 1.63% 2.41% 2.50% 2.23% 2.63% 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 J 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Page 11 25091 280 1.13% 23646 1116 4.45% 329 1.31% 23691 -1120 -4.51% 22201 1064 4.49% 426 1.80% VP.XLS 26 21 71 52 65 94 70 68 59 77 81 92 88 91 82 83 98 87 99 86 89 93 85 80 90 101 84 100 95 101 78 97 96 355G 356B-a 535D 555A 565C 526 476J 486K 565B 565E 566G 5661-1 7171 756G 756G-a 757H 817C 817D 956F 957G 1251 725A 725B 725B-a 726D 726E 726E-a 726F 726F-a 1255 726K 726K-a 155C 816B 826A 2801 784 313 3533 3435 45 564 1359 1787 3045 1964 2125 1103 3581 271 1837 3999 1846 1402 573 2365 785 550 24 926 3227 0 1778' 1365 40071 2073 4 24 4011 2983 173674 2565 704 266 1391 868 45 428 903 672 1567 1704 1658 959 2527 196 1130 1749 903 619 369 2232 543 545 23 530 2361 0 1637 1136 3465 1536 4 8 2611 1973 112889 198 65 44 2092 2543 0 127 410 1094 1422 242 446 128 1010 74 670 2205 925 737 196 119 239 3 0 385 842 0 113 208 492 507 0 16 1342 974 58438 7.07% 8.29% 14.06% 59.21% 74.03% 0.00% 22.52% 30.17% 61.22% 46.70% 12.32% 20.99% 11.60% 28.20% 27.31% 36.47%' 55.14% 50.11% 52.57%, 34.21%| 5.03% 30.45% 0.55% 0.00% 41.58% 26.09% #DIV/0! 6.36% 15.24% 12.28% 24.46% 0.00% 66.67% 33.46% 32.65% 33.65% 38 15 3 50 24 0 9 46 21 56 18 21 16 44 1 37 45 18 46 8 14 3 2 1 11 24 0 28 21 50, 30 0 0 58 36 2347 1.36% 1.91% 0.96% 1.42% 0.70% 0.00% 1.60% 3.38% 1.18% 1.84% 0.92% 0.99% 1.45% 1.23% 0.37% 2.01% 1.13% 0.98% 3.28% 1.40% 0.59% 0.38% 0.36% 4.17% 1.19% 0.74% #DIV/0! 1.57% 1.54% 1.25% 1.45% 0.00% 0.00% 1.45% 1.21% 1.35% 55 5 55 6 6 66 66 66 666 666 6 77 7 77 77 7 77 1 1 17 1 25339 528 2.13% 18908 5979 23.60% 452 1.78% 24811 Page 12 25501 690 2.78% 15429 9686 37.98% 386 1.51% 24122 -689 -2.78% 173674 18604 5240 21.72% 278 1.15% 112889 58438 2347 71 72SB-O VP.XLS Proposal #4 Record _______75 72 ______ 56 M ______ ______ 51 100 43 57 ______ ______ ______ 55 W _______ _______7 ______ ______ 58 _______7^ ______ 46 106 103 ______ 47 107 ______ 1_ 29 ______ ______ ______ M ______ 69 102 ______ 54 ______ 49 50 vpdist 557K 567J 567J-a 657H 6671 676E 687D-a 687D-b 687F 687J 687J-a 687K 697G 957B 957E 957H 9571 957K 967C 967D 997/\ 3751-0 475H-b 4751 4751-0 476E 476G 476J-O 486K 486K-O 5661 5661-0 587L 686A 687B 687C tOtQljX?P 277 2406 968 609 3724 329 287 _______ 100 1514 1721 357 2579 112 2786 1546 _________ 0 501 1536 2455 600 1126 261 _______ 736 1738 680 2628 1004 276 1359 522 1370 321 1539 3454 4559 3081 whife pop 1 22 320 52 1065 174 0 57 1153 120 ___5 81 34 193 13 ___0 12 1071 584 25 36 261 677 998 649 1675 749 260 903 487 704 90 75 1486 494 296 blackjx>p 276 2377 ________ 556 2637 149 287 41 349 1599 ________ 2489 77 2583 1532 0 ________ ________ _______ 574 _______ 1087 __________ 0 48 6&3 13 912 ________ 226 __________2i 410 _________ ________ ________ 215 1462 iW 4060 2770 %BP 99.64% 98.79% 63.33% 91.30% 70.81% 45.29%' 100.00% 41.00% 23.05% 92.91% 98.60% 96.51% 68.75% 92.71% 99.09% #DIV/0! 97.60% 29.82% 75.56% 95.67% 96.54% 0.00% 6.52% 39.30% 1.91% 34.70% 21.51% 3.99% 30.17% 5.36% 44.31% 66.98% 95.00% 55.65% 89.05% 89.91% otherjaop 07 35 1 22 6 02 12 2 091 10 10 07 16 1 ________ 3 0 11 57 18 41 39 ________ 5 46 7 59 16 2 46 5 15 %OP 0.00% 0.29% 3.62% 0.16% 0.59% 1.82% 0.00% 2.00% 0.79% 0.12% 0.00% 0.35% 0.89% 0.36% 0.06% #DIV/0! 0.00% 0.46% 0.65% 0.17% 0.27% 0.00% 1.49%' 3.28% 2.65% 1.56%' 3.88%' 1.81%' 3.38% 1.34% 4.31% 4.98% 0.13% 1.33% 0.11% 0.49% eldist4 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 111 11 1 11 11 12 2 2 22 2 2 2 22 2 2 2 2 2 25533 722 2.91% 5018 20380 79.82% 135 0.53% Page 13 . Q Q = VP.XLS KL i. L' r. J
I I Si K r. 'p, b it k* I 5 &IK4UllbK>UiS 44 59 13 14 18 17 15 11 8 32 34 24 23 33 31 30 35 27 68 10512 3 4 10 12 19 67 16 37 36 39 48 20 22 25 687D 246D 246H 2461 2461-0 246J 246J-a 246K 246L 246L-a 355H-a 3751 4758 4758-0 475H 475H-a 476C 476D 476E 476E-a 476G-a 135E 135J 245A 245G 2468 246C 246E 275F 355A 3568 475A 135G 245G-a 335E 335J 355C 355D 355F 2236 1757 828 609 182 1323 1400 3274 14267 1164 252 1058 1267 1686 313 1974 1565 1747 866 1880 50 5709 2415 1689 2103 1850 4222 140 2203 2211 1624 535 640 2088 1615 1480 3230 3196 280 1717 825 606 182 1218 1390 3136 1352 7 1102 243 982 1085 1635 313 1914 1506 1625 623 1700 50 5110 2236 1419 2053 1804 3837 139 2148 2126 1596 499 604 1965 1496 1391 2957 2783 1943 14 0 0 0 89 3 111 67 0 57 4 67 151 15 0 23 40 107 240 124 ___0 460 138 232 24 28 282 1 22 43 9 25 29 89 80 52 201 329 86.90% 0.80% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.73% 0.21% 3.39% 4,70% 0.00% 4.90% 1.59% 6.33% 11.92% 0.89% 0.00% 1.17% 2.56% 6.12% 27.71% 6.60% 0.00% 8.06% 5.71% 13.74% 1.14% 1.51% 6.68% 0.71% 1.00% 1.94% 0.55% 4.67% 4.53% 4.26% 4.95% 3.51% 6.22% 10.29% 13 26 3 3 0 16 7 7.1 1 05 59 31 36 0 37 19 15 3 56 0 139 41 38 18 103 0 33 42 19 11 7 34 39 37 72 84 0.58% 1.48% 0.36% 0.49%' 0.00% 1.21% 0.50% 0.82% 0.49% 0.00%' 0.43% 1.98%, 0.85%' 2.45%, 2.14% 0.00% 1.87% 1.21% 0.86% 0.35% 2.98% 0.00% 2.43% 1.70% 2.25% 1.24% 0.97% 2.44% 0.00% 1.50% 1.90% 1.17% 2.06% 1.09% 1.63% 2.41% 2.50% 2.23% 2.63% 2 3 3 33 3 3 33 33 33 333 3 333 34 44 4 44 444 44 55 55 5. 5 5 7^1(:A 3.84% 10084 15300 59.39% 380 1.47% nm Page 14 24578 -233 -0.94% 23161 1112 4.52% 305 1,24% 24216 -595 -2.40% 22518 1239 5.12% 459 1.90% VP.XLS 26 ^38 21 71 52 59 89 94 70 65 77 81 92 88 84 108 91 82 98 Q7 99 86 93 85 80 90 101 100 95 101 109 78 97 83 96 355G 355H 356B-O 535D 555A 565B 725A 526 476J 565C 565E 566G 566H 7171 726F 726 F-g 756G 757 H 817D 956F 957G 1251 725B 725B-O 726D 726E 726E-a 726J 72(:,y. 726K-a 756G-O 766C 816B 817C 826A 2801 1669 784 313 3533' 1787 785 45 564 3435 3045 1964 2125 1103 1778 1365 3581 1837 1846 1402 573 2365 550 24 926 3227 ___0 4007 2073 ____4 271 ___24' 4011 ~3999 2983 173674 2565 1489 704 266 1391 672 543 ____ 428 868 1567 1704 1658 959 1637 1136 2527 1130 903 619 369 2232 545 ____ 530 2361 _____0 3465 1536 4 196 _____8 2611 1749 1973 112889 198 144 ___ 44 2092 1094 239 ____0 127 2543 1422 242 446 128 113 208 1010 670 925 737 196 119 ____3 0 385 842 ____0 492 507 ____0 74 ___16 1342 2205 974 58438 7.07% 8.63% 8.29% 14.06% 59.21% 61.22% 30.45% 0.00% 22.52%' 74.03%, 46.70% 12.32% 20.99% 11.60% 6.36% 15.24% 28.20% 36.47% 50.11% 52.57% 34.21% 5.03% 0.55% 0.00% 41.58% 26.09% #DIV/0! 12.28% 24.46% 0.00% 27.31% 66.67% 33.46% 55.14% 32.65% 33.65% 38 36 15 3 50 21 3 0 9 24 56 18 21 16 28 21 44 37 18 46 8 14 2 1 11 24 0 50 30 0 1 0 58 45 36 2347 1.36% 2.16% 1.91% 0.96% 1.42% 1.18% 0.38% 0.00% 1.60% 0.70% 1.84% 0.92% 0.99%' 1.45%' 1.57% 1.54% 1.23% 2.01% 0.98% 3.28% 1.40% 0.59% 0.36% 4.17% 1.19% 0.74% #DIV/0! 1.25% 1.45% 0.00% 0.37% 0.00% 1.45% 1.13% 1.21% 1.35% 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 J 1 24456 -355 -1.43% 19325 4681 19.14% 450 1.84% 24811 Page 15 24663 -148 -0.59% 15550 8767 35.55% 346 1.40% 24464 -347 -1.40% 173674 17233 6959 28.45% 272 1.11% 112889 58438 23474^ RECBVi^O APR 2 9 1994 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Office Of Desegrecafon Moniiomig NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE JOSHUA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO LRSD'S MOTION TO REOPEN AND TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD Appellants, Lorene Joshua, et al., for their response in opposition to LRSD's motion to reopen and supplement the record state: 1. LRSD has submitted documents to this panel which are potentially prejudicial to the Joshua intervenor's appeal which is based upon the facts as they existed before the trial court. If the documents they submitted were an accurate portrayal of the facts which occurred after the trial of this matter, it would not be so offensive to the procedures of this court and fairness to the appellants. Such is not the case. 2. The alleged election results fail to inform the court of salient facts
facts which could not be developed at trialbecause they had not occurred, and facts which the district court was never informed of or ruled on. For instance, the alleged white candidate "Gonzales " was a write in candidate, not a registered candidate. His or her alleged defeat by the black candidate, the only candidate to file for the position. is neither surprising or inconsistent with racially polarized voting. In fact, if a white write in candidate can garner nearly 50% of the vote once the majority white voters discover that the only candidate to file is black, then Joshua would submit that that is evidence of a highly motivated racially polarized voting block. As to the other race in which the black candidate was allegedly defeated by a white candidate in a majority black district, Joshua would point out that the vote count in that race was surrounded by a great deal of controversy. One of the black candidates was initially declared the winner. It was later alleged that the vote counts were reversed and that the white candidate garnered the votes initially attributed to the black candidate. The reason that the challenge came so quickly was that most of the original vote attributed to the black candidate came from known white precincts. The white candidate could not believe he lost in the white areas. So he asked for a recount. LRSD has provided nothing but total vote counts. Where is the precinct analysis to show the actual correlation between the race of the voter and the race of the candidate? If the LRSD wants this Court to consider these subsequent races. it should ask for a fair presentation of additional factsand let each side present its witnesses. But that, as LRSD knows, is not the function of an appellate court. Rather, LRSD deliberately sought to prejudice this panel with these allegations of race neutral elections knowing that supplementation of the record at this stage was inappropriate. Judge Wright did not consider either of these elections and neither should this court. Unfortunately, the damage is done. 2. The record on appeal is limited by the Rule 10(a), Fed.R.App.P. , to "the original papers and exhibits filed in the district court, the transcript of proceedings, if any, and a certified copy of the docket entries prepared by the clerk of the district court." Rule 10(e) allows modification and supplementation of the record under very limited circumstances: If anything material to either party is omitted from the record by error or accident or is misstated therein, the parties by stipulation, or the district court, either before or after the record is transmitted to the court of appeals, or the court of appeals, on proper suggestion or of its own initiative, may direct that the omission or misstatement be corrected, and if necessary that a supplemental record be certified and transmitted. 3. There are no provisions under the rules for submitting evidence which a party discovers after trial, or which occurs after trial as LRSD proposes to the court. WHEREFORE, Joshua Intervenors, respectfully prays the Court will deny LRSD's motion to reopen and supplement the record. Respectfully submitted. J'&hn W. Walker Mark Burnette Bar No. 64046 Bar No. 88078UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT RECEh^ MAY 9 1994 ci Dssegregaiion Sontori.f
g NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME The Joshua Intervenors, for their Motion for an Extension of Time to File Their Reply Brief, states that: 1. The Appellants' Reply Brief in the above referenced consolidated appeals are due on May 10, 1994. 2. Due to the fact that the parties have been trying to reach a settlement on one of the appeals, an additional extension of time of twenty (20) days is necessary in which to file their reply brief. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors request an extension of time to and through May 30, 1994. Respectfully submitted,Jo! Ma: W. Walker ____________ Bar No. 64046 Burnette'- Bar No, 88078 DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702 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 5 day of May, 1994 . Steve Jones, Esq. JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esg. 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, Esg. ROCHELL & STREETT 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 John Walker ( U). i'UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE REPLY BRIEF OP APPELLANTS Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 Bar No. 64046 72206 DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702pprc 8 y MAY 2 4 1994 REPLY INTRODUCTION Office of Desegregation Monitoring LRSD errs when it claims, "In this appeal, the Charles Plaintiffs raise for the first time an argument based on the dispersion of black voters." Brief for Appellee, p. 13, n. 7. The Charles Plaintiffs raised the "packing" and "dispersion" arguments in both Plaintiffs' Trial Brief, p. 1-2, and Plaintiffs' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law p. 7-8, 15 25-2 6, presented to the Court below at trial. These documents are submitted to this Court in the Addendum to this Reply Brief to clarify that the record below was made on these arguments. LRSD cites Shaw v. Reno 509 U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. ___, 125 L.Ed.2d 511, 535 (1993) as though only the Charles Plaintiffs' proposed plan "demands close judicial scrutiny," because "[t]he Charles Plaintiffs advocate racial gerrymandering of the LRSD elections zones to create a third majority black zone." Brief for Appellee, p. 13-4. Close judicial scrutiny is required, but it is because the Pulaski County Board of Education (PCBE) and LRSD have II given the racial make-up of the LRSD election zones paramount consideration since at least 1986 when LRSD proposed racially gerrymandered districts approved by Judge Woods. Race has been considered by all the parties in devising their respective alternative election zones. If race had not already been a factor in the PCBE plan - as LRSD might like for this Court to assume in light of its reference to "the goal of a political system in which race no long matters," then close judicial I scrutiny would not be required. But here, race was foremost on the SSRSSBSminds of LRSD in 1986 when it proposed the single member zones approved by Judge Woods. It is precisely that race conscious plan that plaintiffs challenged in this case. Race was foremost on the minds of the "Metroplan" staff hired by the PCBE to devise new election zones - the only variable that is reported in the four plans submitted by Metroplan to PCBE was the racial characteristics of the zones. It is precisely because race was such major consideration in PCBE and LRSD's a deliberations and planning that makes close scrutiny of their plans necessary. That is especially true now that the district court has condoned a plan that is retrogressive on minority voting strength relative even to the 1986 plan that plaintiffs originally challenged in this case. I. WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD FOR A "SUFFICIENTLY LARGE" MINORITY DISTRICT? The LRSD and the district court ascribe to a "Catch 22" standard for what constitutes "sufficiently large and a geographically compact [minority] to constitute a majority in three LRSD elections zones." When it is the Charles Plaintiffs' burden, the district court and LRSD apply a standard of a minimum of 65% minority majority, "otherwise, the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones cannot be responsible for minority voters inability to elect its candidates." Brief for Appellee, p. 16-7. As both amended 2 and its legislative history make clear, in evaluating a statutory claim of vote dilution through districting, the trial court is to consider the "totality of circumstances" and to determine, based "upon a searching practical evaluation of the 'past and present reality' [] whether the political process is equally open to minority voters. This deteraination is peculiarly dependent upon thefacts of each case." Thornbugh v. Ginqles. 478 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 2781, 92 L.Ed2 64 (1986). The district Court did not make a searching practical evaluation when it held plaintiffs to a 65% minimum minority population standard. It noted, in fact, that "one of the zones in the plan adopted by the PCBE has a black population under 65%" and. "It is possible 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 only goes to show that Little Rock does not suffer from racially polarized voting, another necessary precondition for a successful voting rights claim." Memorandum Opinion and Order. P. 25 (emphasis added). The Court's analysis ignores the reality and importance of white cross-over voting even in situations where legally significant racially polarized voting exists because legally significant racially polarized voting is a matter of degree not absolutes: "[I]n 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." Thornburgh v. Gingles. 478 U.S. 56, 106 S.Ct. at 2770 (emphasis added). To say that white crossover votes "only goes to show" that plaintiffs cannot prove legally significant racially polarized voting is erroneous in light of the Supreme Court's recognition of its presence among otherwise disenfranchised minority voters. The Court cannot hold the existing alliances with the few white voters who do not vote with the white bloc vote inthe LRSD against the Plaintiffs without recognizing that their presence also lowers the threshold for establishing a viable minority district. Hence, the existence and reliance on some white crossover voting also "goes to show" that a less than 65% minority population in a district may still be a viable minority majority district in the face of otherwise racially polarized voting. No testimony or evidence was presented at trial to dispute Charles Plaintiffs' proof that racially polarized white bloc voting is the norm among LRSD voters. The statistical evidence of the correlation between the race of the voter and the race of the candidate was overwhelming despite the district court's unsubstantiated belief to the contrary. Mr. Lynch's use of correlation coefficients and r- sguare are regression analyses. They are accepted statistical methods without further analysis, see Solomon v. Liberty County Florida. 899 F.2d 1012, 1020, although here, many of the precincts Mr. Lynch relied upon were homogeneous precincts with sufficiently high correlation coefficients to provide the confirmation that the correlation between the race of the voter and the race of the candidate did constitute racial voting in numerous elections over time. His uncontroverted testimony was that there was political cohesion among minority voters and that there was white bloc voting. Mr. Lynch's expertise and opinion was not based solely on statistics however. He is a recognized expert on local government and local elections due to his academic and professional backgroundand his constant participation in local electoral politics. He, more than anyone in this community, knows the voting blocs, patterns and practices in Little Rock. His experience can indeed form the basis for many of the elements of Plaintiff's voting rights claims. Sierra v. El Paso Independent School District. 591 F.Supp. 802 (W.D.Tex. 1983)(Even more persuasive to the court than the testimony of the expert witness, however, was the testimony of the practical politicians who are thoroughly familiar with voting behavior in El Paso County.") In addition. numerous other politician witnesses testified to the racially polarized voting patterns in Little Rock elections in this case. No one testified to the contrary. Clearly, central Arkansas minority voters have been successful in single member district with less than a 65% majority and the district court should not hold them to a higher standard while giving the PCBE and LRSD the benefit of a lesser standard. However, if a 65% standard is adopted for plaintiffs, defendants should be held to the same standard or the Court will be condoning retrogression of minority voting rights. The 1986 Court Order establishing racially specified election zones is an admission that prior to the adoption of single member districts, the LRSD minority voters had suffered voting rights violations. If not, there would have been no justification for LRSD's use of a race conscious remedy at that point. If a 65% standard is applied, then PCBE's 59% district, which the Court adopted, falls short of the standard and results in retrogression relative to the 1986 plan which was adopted to remedy prior votingrights inequities. The Charles Plaintiffs' alternative plan, with three minority majority districts ranging from 61.7 to 64.7% black population, would provide over 81% of the minority voters a voice on the LRSD board of directors. Far less opportunity to participate in the electoral process and elect representatives of their choice results from the adoption of only two minority districts as approved by the court because less of the minority population is contained in them
moreover, in two other zones which the Court adopted, substantial numbers of minority voters will continue to be submerged in 65 and 72% white zones. II. THE CHARLES PLAINTIFFS WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE 1986 ORDER, AND THEREFORE, THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY OT THEIR CHALLENGE TO THE ELECTION DISTRICTS By Order of April 17, 1989, Joshua Intervenors represent the class of "all past, present and future African-American or black public school age children of Pulaski County, Arkansas, and their parents or guardians." That Order was entered for the express purpose of approving the settlement then submitted to the court. LRSD Appendix, p. 1. Nothing in the settlement dealt with voting districts. That order, and the Stipulation adding Dale Charles in a representative capacity on March 1, 1889, obviously occurred after the 1986 Order adopting the election zones anyway. At no stage in the LRSD v. PCSSD litigation did Joshua Intervenors purport to represent the class of minority voters in the LRSD. The focus of the Joshua Intervenors has always been the rights of the minorityschool children, not their parents or guardian voting rights. Any representation that Joshua had in the case in 1986 would have been limited to protecting school age children and their parents and that representation does not cover all minority voters because it does not include minority voters who do not have school age children, "past present or future. I in Pulaski County. What of the voting rights of minority voters with no children? Even if Joshua represented some voters' voting rights. which Joshua have never purported to do, they could never be held to have represented the class of minority voters explicitly excluded by the April 1989 Order. Only the Charles Plaintiffs, by a separate complaint filed on August 12, 1992, have purported to represent the class of minority voters in LRSD. It is absurd to hold all minority voters to an Order entered while they were not parties nor were they represented, and which was drafted and approved by the defendants named in their complaint. The law of the case doctrine simply does not apply to non-parties. It is not meant to restrain non-parties from asserting their rights as the district court has imposed it. The law of the case doctrine is intended to apply "at subsequent stages of the same case." Memorandum and Opinion p. 27. The district court should not be allowed to hold non-parties to a standard set by these defendants simply by consolidating their 1992 action with a pending 1982 case. That, however. is what the district court has done. The whole purpose of the doctrine is to avoid "re-litigation" of issues
but here, no voting rights issues were ever litigated because no one had asserted a voting rightsclaim in 1986. As stated previously, the very need for the 1986 Order confirms that a voting rights violation existed prior to 1986. If one assumes that the 1986 Order was a necessary remedy to some violation, then it follows that elections prior to 1986 would have constituted voting rights violations. The fact of pre-1986 voting rights violations would be the case notwithstanding the district court's contrary findings in 1993 that there was no racially polarized voting or political cohesiveness among minorities, etc. Needless to say, at least in 1986, LRSD believed that a voting rights violation must have existed prior to 1986, or it would not have made race conscious decisions about the lines it was proposing to Judge Woods. If it did make race conscious decisions absent a voting rights violation, then the lines proposed at that time should be suspect on that basis. Re
i^e^t JO^N 4? 3/23 - Litt
ectfull submitted WALKER, 1/Broadway bmrtted,
> > i, P.A. I little Rock, Ar 72206 (501) 374-3758CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that two copies of the foregoing Brief has been hand delivered to the counsel of record listed below on this day of May, 1994. Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Elizabeth Boyter, Esq. Arkansas Dept..of Education Little Rock, AR 72201 #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Jerry Malone, Esq. Little Rock School District Little Rock, AR 72201 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. Roachell & Streett 401 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 504 Little Rock, AR Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Tim Humphries, Esq. Attorney General's Office 200 Tower Building 323 Center Street Little Rock, Ar 72201 ---------------7^^' John X. Walker f:\W\LRSD\ARGUE.8THC:\U\LRSD\ARGUE.8TH ADDENDUMIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS DALE CHARLES, ET AL. V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS* TRIAL BRIEF INTRODUCTION Defendants and the Court have recognized and conceded that the 1986 LRSD single member districts are out of compliance with the one-person one-vote requirement. A corrective plan must be adopted for that purpose in any event. Plaintiffs' will therefore focus on their allegation that the plan in current use, as well as the plan submitted to the court by the Pulaski County Board of Education, result in a violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973. Courts have recognized two general methods by which minority group voting strength may be diluted: "Dilution of racial minority voting strength may be caused by the dispersal of blacks into districts in which they constitute an ineffective minorityof voters or from the concentration of blacks into districts where they constitute an excessive majority, [citations omitted]." Thornburgh v. Singles. 478 U.S. 30, ___, n.ll, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 2764, n. 11, 92 L.Ed.2d. 25 (1986)(The latter version of dilution is commonly called "packing.") "Districts with a black majority greater than 65% - 70% (the percentage considered necessary to ensure blacks a reasonable opportunity to elect candidates of their choice) may evidence "packing." Ketchum v. Byrne, 740 F.2d 1398, 1407-8, n. 7 (7th Cir. 1984)
and see. Rybicki v. State Board of Elections of the State of Illinois. 574 F.Supp. 1082, 1120-21 (N.D. Ill. 1982) (three judge panel) (Rybicki I). Plaintiffs claim that both forms of dilution are at work under the current system, and alternatively, will continue under the plan submitted by the PCBE
i.e., black voters are split up in several majority white zones to the extent that their votes are an ineffective minority in those zoned elections 33%, 28.5%, and 23.8% black population in zones 5, 6, and 7, respectively
and they are overly concentrated in the two minority wards - 84.35% in the current zone 1, and 74.97% in zone 2. In the PCBE's recent submission to the court, zone 1 still retains a packed 79.82% majority black district in zone 1, and minority voters still dispersed in large pockets in zones 5, 6, and 7. I. LEGAL STANDARDS A. Proof Required to Demonstrate a Section 2 Violation: The seminal case for analysis of vote dilution claims under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is Thornburgh v. Gingles. 478U.S. 30, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986). In Ginqles. the Court set out a three part test, and its rationale, which plaintiffs must meet to prove their case: First the demonstrate minority that group must be able to it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single member district. If it is not, as would be the case in a substantially integrated district, the multimember form of the district cannot be responsible for minority voter's inability to elect its candidates. [footnote omitted] [citations omitted].. . Second, the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive. minority group is not politically cohesive. If the it cannot be said that the selection of a multimember electoral structure thwarts distinctive minority group interests. [citation omitted] Third, the minority must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it- in the absence of special circumstances, the minority candidate running unopposed. such as see. infra, at 57, and n. 26 usually to defeat the minority's omitted] preferred candidate. [citations In establishing this last circumstance. the minority group demonstrates that submergence in a white multimember district impedes its ability to elect its chosen representatives. 478 U.S. 50-1, 106 S.Ct. 2767, 92 L.Ed.2d 46-7. Besides "running unopposed," the Supreme Court referred to other "special circumstances" affecting the third precondition. such as, "incumbency, or the utilization of bullet voting [to] explain minority electoral success in a polarized context." Id. at 57, 106 S.Ct. 2770. It cautioned that "[t]his list of special circumstances is illustrative, not exclusive." Id. at 57, n.26. 106 S.Ct. 2770. The Senate Report expressly states that election of a few minority candidates does not necessarily foreclose the possibility of vote dilution. noting that if it did. the possibility exists that the majority citizens might evade [ 2] by manipulating the election of a safe minority candidate." Id., 106s.ct. at 2779. And in a footnote, the Court quoted Zimmer v. McKeithen. 485 F.2d. 1297, 1307 (CA5 1973) with approval
"...Such success might. on occasion. be attributable to the work of politicians. who. apprehending that the support of black a candidate would be politically expedient, campaign to insure his election." Id., 106 S.ct. at 2780. The appointment of a black board member is comparable to campaigning for that person because in subsequent elections, he gains the benefit of incumbency. a special circumstance which can explain his success. In Gingles, the Court went on to assess the sustained electoral successes in North Carolina House District 23 under the standards it had announced: 1 In some situations, it may be possible for 2 plaintiffs to demonstrate that such sustained electoral success does not accurately reflect the minority group's ability to elect its preferred representative, but appellees have not done so here. Appellees presented evidence relating to black electoral success in the last three elections
they failed utterly, though, to offer any explanation for the success of black candidates in the previous three elections. Consecfuentlv, we believe that the District Court erred as a matter of law, in ignoring the sustained success black voters have enioved in House District 23, and would reverse with respect to that District. Id. at ___, 106 S.ct. 2780 (emphasis added). The "evidence relating to black electoral success in the last three elections," which the court refers to, was the fact that each black candidate ran essentially unopposed. See. Gingles V. 1 House District 23 was a three member district in which a black person had been elected in 1972, 1974, 1976, 1978, 1980, and 1982. Holding one seat was essentially proportional representation for black voters in the district.Edmiston. 590 F. Supp. 345, 370 (E.D.N.C. 1984)("Black candidate Spaulding ran uncontested in the general election in 1978 and in the primary and general election in 1980. In the 1982 election there was no Republican opposition and the general election was, for all practical purposes, unopposed." Id.) However, there was no evidence in the record to explain the success of black candidates in 1972, 1974, and 1976. Had all of the elections been uncontested, the Court presumably would have affirmed the lower court on House District No. 23 as well. It is clear that the Court identified at least three "special circumstances" that may satisfactorily demonstrate that sustained success does not accurately reflect the minority's ability to elect its preferred representatives: incumbency, uncontested elections and the utilization of bullet voting. Clearly there are more though. In addition to the three Gingles factors discussed above, the legislative history of 2 enumerated several other objective factors to guide courts in analyzing whether there is a violation of minority voting rights under 2: (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 democratic process
otherwise to participate in the voting in the (2) the extent to which elections of the state or political subdivision is racially polarized
(3) the extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, anti- single shot practices provisions. or other voting or procedures that may enhance opportunity for discrimination against the minority group
(4) if there is a candidate slating process, whether the members of theminority group have been denied access to that process
(5) 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 hinders their participate effectively in ability to the political process
(6) whether the political campaigns have been characterized by overt or subtle racial appeals
members of (7) the extent the minority group to have which been elected to public office in the jurisdiction (8) whether there is a significant lack of responsiveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs of the minority group and (9) whether the policy underlying the sate or political subdivisions' use of such voting qualifications, prerequisite to voting, standard, practice or procedure is tenuous. S.Rep. No. 417, at 28-9, H.R.Rep.No. 227, at 30, 1982 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News at 206-7. In light of these extensive factual underpinnings in vote dilution claims, this Circuit has adopted a stringent requirement for factual and legal reasoning from the lower courts to make its appellate review possible: Because the resolution of a voting dilution claim requires close analysis of unusually complex factual patterns, and because the decision in such a case has the potential for serious interference with state functions, we have strictly adhered to the Rule 52 (a) requirements in voting dilution cases and have required district courts to explain with particularity the reasoning and the subsidiary factual reasoning. conclusions underlying their Buckanaqa v. Sisseton Ind. School District. No. 54-5, South Dakota. 804 F.2d 469, 472 (Sth Cir. 1986) (quoting Velasquez v. Citv of Abilene. 725 F.2d 1017, 1020 (5th Cir. 1984). B. Where the Parties Stand on Remedial Plans
If the court finds either a violation of the constitutionalEfl one-person one-vote requirement or section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, then the court ordinarily must give the responsible legislative body an opportunity to adopt a remedial plan for future elections. Reynolds v. Sims. 377 U.S. 533, 586, 12 L.Ed.2d 506, 541, 84 S.Ct. 1362 (1964)). The desire to give "the appropriate legislative body the first opportunity to devise an acceptable remedial plan" is traceable to Supreme Court precedent in state legislative reapportionment cases but that deference may be lost or ignored by the "appropriate governmental agency": "reapportionment is primarily a matter for legislative consideration and determination, and [] judicial relief becomes appropriate only when a legislature fails to reapportion according to federal constitutional requisites in a timely fashion after having had an adequate opportunity to do so." Id. at 586, 12 L.Ed.2d 506, 541, 84 S.Ct. 1362 (1964)). A court owes no deference, however, if the responsible legislative body fails to act according to its legal authority, or acts without legal authority. East Carroll Parish School Bd. v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636, 47 L.Ed.2d 296, 96 S.Ct. 1083 (1976). In Wise V. Lipscomb. 437 U.S. 535, 545, 57 L.Ed.2d 411, 420-1, 98 S.Ct. 2493 (1978), Justice White explained summarized the distinction in two cases
"In [East Carroll Parish! the District Court instructed the East Carroll police reapportionment plans. jury and school boards to file arrangements which the court adopted. They both submitted multi-member We held that the District Court erred in approving a multi-member plan because "when United States district courts are put to the task of fashioning reapportionment plans to supplant concededly invalid state legislation, single member districts are to be preferred absent unusual circumstances, [citation omitted]. In reaching this conclusion, however, we emphasized that the bodies which submitted the plans did not reapportion themselves and. furthermore. could purport to not evenlegally do so under federal law because state legislation providing them with such powers had been disapproved by the Attorney General of the United States under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Under these circtimstances, it was concluded that the mere act of submitting a plan was not the eguivalent of a legislative act of reapportionment performed in accordance with the political process of the community in guestion. 437 U.S. at 545, 57 L.Ed.2d 420 (White, J.). The situation facing this Court is most like that in East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall and can be thoroughly distinguished from Wise v. Lipscomb. The Pulaski County Board of Education (PCBE) has the authority to adopt a plan, but has explicitly refused to do so. It has passed a motion merely to "submit" one possible plan to this Court for this Court to approve for implementation and order its adoption. (See "Minutes of the December 29, 1992 PCSB Meeting Plaintiff's Exhibit And see Pulaski County Board of Education's Motion For Approval of Election Zones. and Pulaski County Board of Education's Response to Plaintiffs' Objections, Response and Memorandum Regarding the Court's Order of February 16, 1993 at 2, paragraph 8
"The Board of Education is not an adversary in this proceeding. It is a party only because Ark. Code Ann. 6- 13-607 gives it responsibility to create election zones. That authority was overridden by this Court in 1986, and this Court has the final authority at this time.") Consequently, PCBE has abandoned its duty and authority to this Court. Plaintiffs do not agree with the PCBE's interpretation that this Court has "overridden" its authority, but can only accept its current position as stated in these pleadings that it is not asserting any authority to adopt any plan. The PCSB does notpurport to have reapportioned the LRSD through any legislative authorization. In keeping with this position, PCBE defendants passed no resolutions to indicate that the PCBE adopted this proposed plan. They claim to act merely as agents of the Court, not within their statutory capacities in submitting this proposal. Nevertheless, there are clear statutory methods by which the PCBE, or the LRSD for that matter, could have adopted a legitimate "legislative" proposal. Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-607 and -630,2 respectively. But neither has chosen to do adopt a plan even after this Court's September Order directing the PCBE to do so. These are the only ways by which the defendants may legislate an alternative to the current electoral mechanism which plaintiffs allege violates the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution and section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Having failed to produce a validly approved legislative plan. the PCBE's plan can only be viewed as a recommendation of the individual members of the board. See Garza v. County of Los Angeles. 918 F.2d 763, 776 (9th Cir.) cert, denied. Ill S.Ct. 681 (1990)("[T]he plan that the Board submitted to the district court could not, under the County's charter, have been considered a Board Redistricting plan, because only three members voted in favor of 2 Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-630 states: "The board of directors of any school district [] authority to provide by resolution adopted by a majority of the vote Fof the board] that a portion of the board shall be elected by zone, at-large, or a combination thereof... Every such resolution adopted by the board of directors of such district shall adopt a plan of election for members of the board of directors which will cause the selection procedure to be in compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965."it, not the four required for such matters." Id.) Here, the board refused to even adopt the plan according to the statutory authority which this Court cited to indicate that it "is appropriate for the County Board to address the issue of LRSD zones." Thus it does not claim to have adopted a plan at all, but as submits one for the court to adopt. Consequently, PCSB's December 29, 1992, proposal gains legal effect only if this Court orders the implementation of that particular plan through its equitable authority. East Carroll Parish, supra. The Court should evaluate the 1986 zones under the totality of the circumstances because that is only plan currently in effect in LRSD. If it finds a voting rights violation under that plan, then the question is whether the court will have fully remedied the violation if it adopts the PCBE's plan. Plaintiffs submit that that plan will not remedy the current voting rights violations. See Jeffers v. Clinton. 730 F.Supp. 196, 217 (E.D.Ark. 1989): We know, and have found in this opinion, how many [single member districts with a majority black voting age population] can be created, and we also know that their lines can be drawn so as to make them compact and conti' therefore, a sort of presumption that an OUS. There is, Id. II. contain that number of majority black districts. Ian adopted should The law as Applied to the Facts A. The Minority Population is Geographically Concentrated Such That Drawn that Out of Seven Single Member Districts Can be e Majority Black. The plaintiffs will established that black minority voters are sufficiently numerous and geographically compact to constitute amajority in three out of seven single member districts in LRSD. Plaintiffs' demographer, will testify that an alternative districting plan which he drafted based upon 1990 census data creates three districts in which the minority population makes up 64.7%, 64.0 Q, s and 61.7 majorities, respectively. The 1990 census shows that the black voting age population (BVAP) in these districts would be only about 4% lower than the black percentage of the total population. This alternative plan clearly establishes that the Plaintiffs met the first of the three factors the Supreme Court identified in Thornburgh v. Ginqles. Plaintiffs point out that this plan is merely meant to persuade the Court that such districts are feasible. The PCBE would have to draft the actual boundaries of the wards if the court finds a violation of the Voting Rights Act. Of course. the PCBE could agree to accept the plaintiffs construction or a variation thereof. B. Minority Political Cohesiveness and the Usual Defeat of the Minority Preferred Candidates The other two Gingles factors are subsumed in Senate Factors 2 and 7, and will be discussed together. Evidence of racially polarized voting is the linchpin of a section 2 vote dilution claim and is relevant to establish two of the three elements set forth in the Gingles decision - political cohesiveness, and ability of white majority to usually defeat the black preferred candidate. See, Gingles. 106 S.Ct. 2769. The second condition required under Gingles. proof that the minority group is politically cohesive, will be amply demonstrated by Mr. Lynch's analysis of voting results in local elections overa period of the last eight years. "A showing that a significant number of minority group members usually vote for the same candidate is one way of proving political cohesiveness necessary to a vote dilution claim [citation omitted] and consequently establishes minority bloc voting within the context of 2." Gingles. 106 S.Ct. at 2769-70. Plaintiffs will present statistical analysis of election results for Little Rock City Board elections and LRSD elections in which a black candidate ran against a white candidate.^ Numerous courts have recognized the importance and relevance of "exogenous" elections when polarized voting cannot sufficiently be shown with the elections in the particular forum being challenged. See, Westwego Citizens for Better Government v. Westwego. 872 F.2d 1201, 1207-10 (5th Cir. 1989)
and see. Citizens for a Better Gretna v. City of Gretna. 834 F.2d 496 (5th Cir 1987). The Little Rock City Board of Directors elections are particularly relevant elections in this case because these elections are local in nature, they encompass nearly the identical voters who make up the school district electorate, and they confirm the racially polarized voting data obtained in the two school board elections that were appropriate to analyze. Without exception, elections in Little Rock, Arkansas, are characterized by racially polarized voting. Voting in the City of 3 Although it is the minority's preferred candidate that is at issue, none of the courts, including the Supreme Court in Gingles. considered "whites only" elections. Therefore, white versus white elections were not analyzed by the plaintiffs in this case, nor should they have been. East Jefferson Coalition v. Jefferson Parish. 691 F.Supp. 991, 1000 (E.D.La. 1988) citing. Smith V. Clinton. 687 F.Supp. 1310, (E.D. Ark 1988).Little Rock Board of Directors races, as well as relevant LRSD races, is extremely racially polarized. In all but one election for which precinct data was available (1986 to present), a statistically significant correlation exists between the support for the black candidate in a precinct group and the percentage of the voting age population in the precinct that is black. The higher the percentage of black voting age population. the higher the vote percent for the black candidate. The analogous correlation exists in the white precincts, indicating white block voting. The higher the white percentage of the voting age population, the higher the vote for the white candidate. Lynch's analysis, a bivariate regression analysis, provides the same detailed statistical basis for a finding of political cohesion that the Supreme Court and other courts have relied upon. Gingles. 106 S.Ct. at 2768 and 2771
See also, Campos v. Citv of Baytown, Texas. 840 F.2d 1240, 1245-6, & n.9, aff en banc, 849 F.2d (5th Cir. 1988)("r" values for black voting data ranged from .52 to .90, with a mean of .76, and "r-squared" ranged from .27 to 81, with a mean of .61.)
and see. Citizens for a Better Gretna. 834 F.2d at 499-500, n.7 and 8. The degree of polarization as measured by the "r" and "r-square" presented for the City of Little Rock and LRSD board of directors elections ("r" values for black voting data ranged from ___ to , and "r-squared" values range from to ) is comparable to that shown in Gingles and Campos. Because of the high degree of bloc voting by black voters in city and school board elections over an extended period of time.the plaintiffs will have established that the black minority is politically cohesive. This evidence will successfully establish the second of the three Gingles preconditions. The plaintiffs will also meet their burden of proof in establishing the third Gingles condition: "that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it - in the absence of soecial circumstances. such as the minority candidate running unopposed, see, infra, at 57, 92 L.Ed.2d, 51, and n. 26 usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate." Proof of white bloc voting was equally as strong as black bloc voting. The correlation coefficients and precinct data are overwhelming. Absent special circumstances. only the black candidates that have run in majority black wards have been successful. For instance, Lottie Shackelford, a black city board member. was able to win in city board races, but she was first appointed by an all white board. In elections since then, she has also had the benefit of being an incumbent or running unopposed. The election of black candidates from majority black school district wards are also "special circumstances" which explain why these elections are not accurate reflections of the minority voters ability to elect representatives of their choice in LRSD elections. C. Other Relevant Senate Factors 1. The extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political subdivision that touches the right of the members of the minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise participate in the democratic process
Since reconstruction, official discrimination has ranged from total disenfranchisement of black voters - to whites only primaries- to poll taxes
all were designed to severely limit black voting rights. Perkins v. City of West Helena. 675 F.2d. 201, 211 (Sth Cir) aff'd mem.. 459 U.S., 801, 103 S.Ct. 33, 74 L.Ed.2d 47 (1982). As the courts have held, these facts need not be proven anew in each case under the Voting Rights Act. Jeffers v. Clinton. 730 F. Supp. 196, 204 (E.D.Ark.) aff'd mem.. ___U.S. ____, 109 S.Ct. 548 L.Ed.2d 576 (1988) ("We do not believe that this history of discrimination, which affects the exercise of the right to vote in all elections under state law, must be proved anew in each case under the Voting Rights Act." Id. quoting. Smith v. Clinton. 687 F. Supp. 1310, 1317-8 (E.D. Ark. 1988). Therefore, this court should take judicial notice that there is history of racial discrimination in the electoral process in Arkansas which a necessarily inhibits full participation in the political process even today. Id.
see also. Smith v. Clinton. 687 F. Supp. 1310, 1317-8 (E.D. Ark. 1988). 11. 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
" Legislation from the 1987 Arkansas General Assembly established a majority vote requirement for all school board elections thereafter. Acts 1987, No 845, 1,2, Ark. Code Ann. 6-14-121 (1991 Cum. Supp.) See generally. Jeffers v. Clinton. 740 F.Supp. 585, 594 (E.D.Ark. 1990)(Three Judge panel opinion finding that "inference of racial motivation is inescapable," in that Arkansas municipal run-off statutes from 1975, 1983, and 1989 were directly responsive to black successes in plurality elections andthat "this series of laws represents a systematic and deliberate attempt to reduce black political opportunity." Id. at 595 (Arnold, Richard, J. writing for the majority)). Although a majority vote requirement is not a per se violation of section 2, the potential for dilutive effects is increased when the three Gingles factors exist, as they do here. See, Gingles. 106 S.Ct. 2767. 111. The extent to which the membership of the minority group in the state or political subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as education, employment, and health, which hinders their ability to participate effectively in the political process
" The history of discrimination in education and employment is well known to anyone with a cursory knowledge of the history of the South, and Arkansas in particular. As a hangover of this history. black per capita income in Pulaski County in 1990 was roughly 50% of the per capita income for whites. Disparities in educational achievements are well known to this Couirt, and are traceable to historic discrimination in the public education provided by the LRSD. Poverty rates and income levels in every category also show the present day effects of the history of discrimination on these socio-economic indicia. (See Plaintiffs' Exhibits - ___.) "Courts have recognized that political participation by minorities tends to be depressed where the minority group members suffer effects of prior discrimination such as inferior education, poor employment opportunities, and low incomes." Thornburgh v. Gingles. 106 S.Ct. 2776 (citations omitted). The "hangover from this history necessarily inhibits full participation in the political process." 687 F.Supp. at 1317.CONCLUSION Analyzing the totality of circumstances in LRSD reveals that the political realities do not afford minority voters an equal opportunity to participate and elect representatives of their choice as are afforded white voters. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, 64046 Mark Burnette, Bar# 88078 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Ar. 72205 (501) 374-3758IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C82-866 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 L^ 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. 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 2 . present and proposed plan for electing school board members, adult plaintiffs raise basic voting rights issues which are The4 sufficiently 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 I 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. 11 8. On or about July 31, 1992, the school district also moved to dismiss, stating, in effect. II 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." 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 g, *0 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. 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 19. 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 "ideal" 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." 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. Gingles, 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 a 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 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 (73%) 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 to . 9 See 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 Tkmerican 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. 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 42. 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 puirpose 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 15The 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 44 . 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 greater voice in a 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 II 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 opportunity to (the ensure elect percentage 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 Rvbicki 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 otheiswise. 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% 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 fortyfive (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 seirve 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 21fl W8M K'* <M e ft , * c. 1994 ii--5ijA: c, 4. {994 Ottfce of Desagfegatiof MonilorU^ Office Of Desegresaiicn Moniitjjiiig UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT fl NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. 11 NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. w ^aiia ra W 41IM 1994 NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA Office of Desegregation Moniloriag a APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE II APPELLANTS' REPLY BRIEF Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker Bar No, 64046 II JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 0 DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR 72702 (501) 444-6200 flUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT *r" NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. RECBIVPD NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. Jlih! 2 I99X NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA Office (rf Desegregation Monitoring 41 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE H REPLY BRIEF OP APPELLANTS Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker - Bar No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 n DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702 ] Il RECEIVED JUN 2 1994 ngiat C^sagrfi^jation Moniioiing 4 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. 4 NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA 4 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE 4 APPELLANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX 4 4 Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker Bar No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 4 DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR 72702 (501) 444-6200 4 4 ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE SUNDAY, AUGUST 23,1992 1 Around Arkansas U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE SU- san Webber Wright on Monday Sept
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.