2:13-cv-00193 localredistricting objectionletterscase 2:13-cv-00193 document 670-15 filed in txsd on...

Local Redistricting

Objection Letters

Defendant 's Exhibit # DE-005555

USA 00012622

PL6739/2/20142:13-cv-00193

Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 670-15 Filed in TXSD on 11/11/14 of 96

Mr. Lucius D. BuntonShafer, Gilliland, Davis,

Bunton ,& McCollumAttorneys at LawP. 0. Drawer 1552Odessa , Texas 79760

Dear Mr. Dunta:

7 JUL ]976

This is in reference to the reapportionaeut ofCommissioners " Court precincts in Crockett County,Texas, oubmitted to the Attorney moral pursuant toSection 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, assuended. Yaw submission was ca^epleted an Way d, 1976.

V. have considered the submitted ches andsupporting materials as well as informatirm and commentsreceived from other interested parties . The reapportion-sent in question was based an voter registration data.To determine whether this reapportionment would havethe effect of abridging the vote of NexLeim Americansin Crockett County this Department an"* to im thepopulation by race and ethnic group of the Comakasiotters'precincts established by the new plan. This informationhas not been provided to vi , although ve requested it.

our experience iudicataa that Mexican Americansgenerally have a lour rate of voter registration thando Anglos . Tb= an apportionment Used on registratioudata is likely to have a dilutive effect ors the vote ofMexican Americans. See 11y v. VIehr, 403 U.S. 10$, 119-19(1971) (Douglas, 3., concurring). because of the umertaintyextant in this redistricting plan due to the absence cKfreliable population statistics , we caaa oc conclude, asare mast user the Votiv-Rights Act , that this rsappartloe-sent does loot have the purpose of the effect of abridgingthe right to vote of Mexican Americana in CrockettCounty.

cc: PublicX1687


USA 00012623


Therefore , I mast , an behalf of the AttorneyGeneral, interpose an objection to the 1975 reappartin-rent of Crockett County.

Please be advised that the Attorney General willreconsider this determination if relevant statisticalinformation is provided, or oa the basis of otherinformation showing that the opportioowemt does nothave the proscribed discriminatory effect. Nawewiw,until and unless the objection is withdrawn, the 1975reapportie nt plan is legally a af4ble.

Sincerely,

J, Stanley Pottingerassistant Attorney General

Civil Lights Division

Defendant 's Exhibit # DEY1

USA 00012624


D.J. 166-012-3X1637

NOV 9 177.

2Mir. :;'3ci.us D. 3; ntonShaer, Gilliland, Davis,

Bunton & McCollumAttorneys at LxvP. 0. Borg. Drawer 1552Odessa , Texas 79760

Lear Mr. Bunton :

This is in reference to your request forreeo^_siclcrat^^.an of the objection interposed by theAttorney Caneral on July 7, 1976, to the 1 5 75rc:di_t plan for Crockett County 'yeas.Additional infori acion which you furs shed insupport of that request was received or. August 16and Sspte-mbor 2 and 22, 1977.

i.s the July 7, 1976, letter indicated, theAttorney Caueral's objection was based on the absenceof reliable population statistics that would facili-tate an appropriate evaluation of the red' s LriCtingplan. You now have supplied data from the resultsof a l 7 7 special census survey undertaken forCrockett County which has enabled us to eke ananalysis of the redistrict:Ui3 plain in accordancewith the zcquireunts of Section 5 of the VotingRights Act.

In our reconsideration of this subiiission -dehave given careful consideration to the 1977 censusdata provided, the i;a oriration furnis zed in con.nec-tion with the initial subuiscion, and couUients andinfor-iatioii >xovidad by other interested parties.Population z cztis tics from the special census showthat Croc'.ett County has a population which i.8 41.5%

Defendants Exhibit # DE-005558

USA 00012625


Mexican American. Cur analysis shows that under theold apportionment plan the concentration of MexicanAmerican population was divided between adjoinin,-,commissioner precincts 1 and 4, each of which Had morethan enou h poDviation for an ideal district and each

j' ^ rof which was sli^^;at_y over ou^it, :le:.jcan Ameri can.^can.

During the 1974 elections in precincts 2 and 4 of thisplan a Mexican American was elected in precinct 4.

Our analysis further snows that, according, tothe 1977 census data, under the plan adopEed in 1975the Mexican American majority in precinct 4, where aMexican American candidate had already been successfulin 1974, was increased to 341 while the Mexican American'majority in precinct 1 was reduced to 537. In a subse-quent election in precinct 1 in 1976 a Yexican Americancandidate was defeated by an Anglo candidate in arunoff. The county has provided no corbelling reason,and we have not been able otherwise to discover one,for the seeming overloading of Mexican Americans intoprecinct 4, i h the inevitable and conco::;mitant reduc-tion of the Mexican American percentage in precinct 1,especially when one effect of that configuration is toincrease to 4.2% the deviation in precinct 1 whichpreviously had been 2.9%.

Under these circumstances, therefore, we areunable to conclude that the redistricting before usdoes not discriminate against Mexican Americans.Accordingly, in view of our analysis and recent courtdecisions to which we feel obligated to give greatweight, e.g., White v. Re'nester, 412 U. S. 755 (1973) ;Robinson v. Co^dissione _r7_7durt, Anderson Count ,Th F. 674 T ;'r4 ; L^^c;6 s v. Le^^lore County-Loa d ofElection Cot mis s ionerg, 5t 2 F. 1 ) + , theAttorney Genera masts decline to withdraw the objectioninterposed to the 1975 redistricting in CrockettCounty.


USA 00012626


3

Of course, as provided by Section 5 of the VotingRights Act, you have the alternative of instituting anaction in the United States District Court for theDistrict of Coiurbia scekin; a declaratory j udgment thatthe redistricting; does not have the prohibited purposeor effect. However, until and unloss such a j udgn ent isobtained , the 1975 Crockett County redistricting planis leZa11y unenforceable.

With regard to the polling place changes under-taken in conjunction with the 1975 reapportionment plan,the Attornoy General does not interpose any objection.However, we feel a responsibility to point out thatSection 5 of the Voting ldZlats Act expressly p rovi.da-9that the failure of the Attorney General to object doesnot bar any subsequent judicial action to enjoin theenforcement o f such char es an d our determination in no{ray seeks to Kdress the question of the validity of thechange in polling places under state law, in view of thelegal unenforceability of the new districting.

Sincerely,

Drew S. D-aya IIIAssistant Attorney General

Civil flights Division


USA 00012627


DJ 166-012-3X1245

oì . r duw 144t

Ti^

Dez"Ar 4r.

A ,1211976

Itu iv. 420, art 4 to thaw izpaoitlou 0.9 Y u :,w.., V.,i'0 r^.q #iz c in * Z fii AC'*

i,= F o IJW Scbol Bou 4 erg '$ Lume ^c:p .d^tt5 â. tM w; a4 4b&aa rarv u #sittad to ha

Qcio.. ursuax t +^ oa .5 of Vocin$Lz 4t!^ Aw; 04, 1965. vc t^ si tsi r t ' as rata .va d -an

January 13, I.M.

3a 1udirzz r t^ of d ;zra phl,a and

Utz C4+4 ua CO ClUd4 44 wa UIUSC I'maug. the Vot. Yti 'xg%

-!^ ♦ h i ter' ^ ♦

iiS5

xiC,7

qtr ^:: t:nt,în}yat

7+

tory

d^^y aXi^+

^

i3.^"t MAC

ity^y

.^tMM^4t

y

ff`

yA^c x

f,lil"^r 'L^ti+ . ZpY e i d4u4 rim L .

a::x^,z<a x F t ixr Lh q ix` mph-.

,acr:ellL UP 4WIk Cr*u whiob ' f obi1 i at4,4 to .tvt- ;,;7icat w4i, t# InC&t4kiat ou. adz' tlljli^ above IWAtuwaa "Y

' '^ •, i__ ; W3, V.5.412' U.S. ^ t ^. : } .^ ^^S^3 w^h V«

Defendant's Exhibit # DE-005561

USA 00012628


i''.=',^' .. .^.F Y- L'_-i•'.'^, d:iy ti;=1 ^171:r;i N, ,. ^.î^w C1 s+ .:is1 .l.. +? :

'^}':',;• :6,-v..,)b.: '1 i.,"+-Ci«^. t?=1':':. ^: 3::^S i:: w1.l,Fy'.i: t.1.1i3 f: w:.i.:ti; 'ê :e`!':..

t 5:trxi3 r:rs 7;r.} t Jr ^.aa .^7, G?t.1tS: by C"I''i trw.^.v Da.

:..:x::7:2:: i '.a^^ ti:tJ L .'+qq

: ti)SSJJyy

lr:^^<.ts3titl

1:3C^16'Sr.rlyry

:^

w.^^1li

^t^

3p

1"{ } {^

i'I 'sf ^ti 7^^3 ^.^^ iw^:^. e714^1k'3.Â ^:.I q^ ^:wf ^L^î W^^îi y.j }^v9 ^.l+y ^.6^J^^ i+r iFS^R.

.3. :eta iIZ7 ire t t: riza 'A*t; :alm*7 Goacr :1

I'tja,kitz D:i.vi>.oi na


USA 00012629


Mr. James W. Smi th, Jr.County AttorneyFrio CountyP. G. Drawer V

5Pcarca l l, Texas 7 SJ6 1

c - 1t 1 1i-. .3tith.

This is iii responz e to your letter of January 19,076, in which yo'.t u:bitted to the Attoracy GeneraliW ::o 3 ut ions of the Frio Coufty Commissioners' Court ofMy 13 and August 11, 1973, which redistricted the;oy.l:." ::cQ7raisnions = `3rcc1.acC.s .''.nd a t abiished new votin

yr :ci`_i : w , zL-apac.tively, pur ::;uzimn to :section 5 of the.."otin JUS .sct o_ 1965. Your Utter and the--t:tcc0.S r:;nterial:wwere receiv& by this Department

February 23, 197 6 .

We have considered the submitted changes andSo po_ tin , M terial 3 to well as information and commentsreceive from other Ktcrested p. r:tiea. Our review andw ly;is =2ho:a Ott t%n coy;:;: Lssioner proeinct lines ast4 r ^ onaoc:cnsari Ly Mute Le ican-ttierican voting

_ area; th tc th county, i ccordirz; to the 1970 Ccru t ,a: "slo Soin y i 0. 11 c;;".'.:t izan-Aza;f~ scan , 2 1 .0 cinglo and1.1Z black. =' ;: w rdiao to Ltfori t ioa available to u,:,nroposecs Comw0sion

e

z xrecinct 3 is approNimately 97-1.Mexican-A^i1.arican and deviates from the norm of an ideal

(population) district of 2 , 790 by 419. thereby exceedinthe nor: by 17.:1. Aa_:Puw Zile, Uomaissiot1cr lre inct 2,ppro. i.ratel; (-K AL io, is 674 (-241) people under the

norm. Thus, it :.J. ^ :o t , te• t^ p;gar that the precinct with theh`ghcrt nerveaVa . ok is the most under-

're c flitch WNW thc_ pre cinct ?Titi ti-le 1'ti"hent percentr:E;e


USA_00012630


Our anslyeis further revoais that there is ahistory of ethnic b loc voting in Frio County. Thereis substantial evidence, ihcluMn the absence of anyMexican- merice.n rc?rme:itation on the S-rerberreapportionn,:,nt coE:;;_ttec responsible for the p lanunder review , Mat ::anican-Awarlanas n re not affordct4access to the ,pu i tical process in Frio County . Vhcaall of there considerations are noted, toneLhec Withthe confiSurst:ion oaf toe plan, particularly theclcn aced shc,3:: of Precinct I which emarges with onlyc: M noxicen-An erica n population , we cannot conclude,ss e most ranicr the Vocing Rights Act, that this

='oc3 no t have the purpose or effectof a.bridlin the &IM to vot e of the Mexican-American

ti airy.

Accordinly , in view of our analysis and recentcourt decisions to which we feel ob?iGated to givegreat wei ht, c.a. , ',.hire v. zee 'e a ter , 412 U.S . 755(IS73); Robisot v. Co'. ;issi.cuc'rs Court, }nderson:'o •atf , 05 J'.2d £:74 (1974), 1 must, on behalf of theAttorney Gzztt:r -l, inter~po e an obfiec ti.oa to the 1973edistrietin of Frio County. In addition, since itis our uaders£:a ndi.n, that state lay requires thatvoting precinct lines coafokm with co; is6ionerzI.f:ci.L tct l jnc -j, this cbjeccio:l Kno readers unenforce-able any resultiag changes in voting precincts.

Of ccuic4, as provided by Section 5 of theVoting i.iz.zits Act* you have the alternative of institut-ing an action in the United States District Court forthe District of Columbia :seeking a declaratory judgmentthat the pre:;:a t^.uossion does not have the purpose

and will not, have L. effect of denying or abrid inthe right to : e,t^c: to r..et:;ber.;; o 1anjua, r iaority",roue in the i:ii.:elti . i1Q.[7ever, unAl and unless such c:

>Qile at is o-.isi:icy , the 1373 trio +.^icuaty rediatrietLL

plan L:, .Girwc.i l {i re=t^J«'ce .b e• Therefore, Vace it is our


USA 00012631


3 -

understanding that primary elections are scheduled fortwo commissioner precincts on May It 1976, i wouldappreciate your .dvi in me by April 23, 1976, of thesteps you intend to tale with reapewt to that election.

Sincerely,

J. Stanley Pottin erAssistant Attorney General

Civil RAW Division


USA 00012632


zenorab1_ Ic White.ecretary of Wtata of TexasCapitol StationAustin, Texas 73711

Dear Ur. :7scre terry:

This is in raferenca to cur latter ofJanuary 23, 1976, and in further reply to yoursubmission of the subdistrictings of 9 multi-member Teaxau House of lepresentativea districtsin House Bill 1097 of the 1575 Session of theTexas Legislature, to the Attorney Generalpursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Actof 1965. Your submIasien was received onNovember 2C, '11.975.

We responded to your submission prior toJanuary 26 , 1976 , the last day of the 60 -day periodAs set out in Secticu 51.22 of our procedural guide-lines for the administration of Section 5, 28 C.F.R.151.22:

When a decision not to object ismade within the 60-day periodfollowing receipt of a submissionwhich satisfies the requirementsof 551.10(a), the Attorney Generalmay reexamine the submission ifadditional inforation cornea tohis attention during the remainderof the 60-day period which wouldrequire objection in accordancewith 151.19.

cc: Public File ;(Rm. 920)X0614


USA_00012633


Such additional information has come tour attsntlcn and we have reexamined the submissionof House Bill 1.097 with regard to the effect ofnew sinnle-member districts defined in House Bill1097 ror uec:3 County , Districts 48A through 48C.

The additional information. is this regardconcerned the minority population within the single-member districting plans for Nueces County presentadto the C ou.Kt prior to its order of January 28, 1975,in Graves U. Barnes . During our initial examina tion.of the districts set out in House Bill 1097 forVueces County we erroneously considered the populationstatistics of the ply submitted to the Court by theState as statistics relative to the plan which the Courtadopted. Ca that erroneous 'oasis we had detsxmiaedthat the plan set out in House Bill 1097 would notdilute minority voting strength given the resultsthat would flow from fairly drawn alterativedistricting plans.

Cur evaluation of the new single-member districtsin House Bill 1097 for Nueces County indicated that thedistrict lines are drawn through a cognizable minorityresidential area known as 'the corridor" in CorpusChristi resulting in an app t or fragmeltingof that area into each of tYLe 3 districts, only inone of which minorities represent a majority of thepopulation .. It was our understanding that inapproaching the question of hoi to draw new single-member districts for Vices County, the legislatureutilized the theory that a fair districting of thecounty, given the county's population , should bedesigned to result in one " safe" iiezican»Americaadistrict, one safe Anglo district , and one "swing"^istrict with close to 50. Anglo and Mezicaa-=rican population.


USA 00012634


3

We had no obj ection to this district;approach as loaq as it did not result in a dilutiono minority voting ttrength and, as I explainedabove, ,iven our erroneous understanding of availabiedistricting alt:=ative we found no such dilutionwould result. However, we now realize that thedistricting plan .or Nueces County adopted by theCourt is Graves v . Barnes , which apportions thecorridor into only 2 districts, results in 2 districtsin which minorities represent a significant majorityof the population . Thus, on the basis of our previousevaluation and in the light of population statisticsof the districting plan ordered by the Court in Gravesv. Barnes, it appears that fairly drawn alternativedistricting plans which avoid fragmenting the corridorinto as many as 3 districts also would make asignificant difference in the ability of minorityresidents of Nuecas County to elect representativesof their choice . In addition , we have determined,as we had determined previously , that the result inhouse Bill 1097 for :ueces County does not appear tobe necessary on the basis of natural boundaries oroverriding considerations of district compactness.

Therefore , the remaining question is whetherthe legislative approach for the distzcting of macesCounty constitutes a compelling governmental justi-fication for the results that it acuiaved in RuecesCounty. I believe it does not . Although the theoryused in House Bill 1097 for apportioning the popu-lation of tueces County could, under other circumstances,be considered to reflect. a legitimate interest of thestate, under the standards for cur Section 5 reviewas enunciated in my lettar of January 23, 1976, andgiven the facts as described above , I view theapportionment approach used in House Bill 1097 for


USA 00012635


r U ce3 CL-, ty as a miaimi.:ation and thus a dilutionof minority voting stx :l th since it u=eces3a Iyand unfairly limits miaoritiss to only ono districtis which they would represent a majority of thpopulation.

Accordingly, we are unable to conclude as wemust under Section 5 that implementaticzn of thedistricts 43A - 48C set out in House Bill 1097 forNueces County will not have a discriminatory effect.Uader these circtmstaces I must, on behalf of theAttorney General, interpose an objection to theimplementation of the specified districts set outiZ House Bill 1097 for Iiuacas Ca uty. So thatthere be no misunderstanding , I should point outthat the objection interposed herein is in additionto the objections interposed in my letter ofJanuary 23, 1976, to the implementation of thedistricts 7A » 7C and 32A - 3 21 set out in Hou eBill 1097 for Jefferson and Tarrant Counties.

Of course, as provided by Section 5 of theVoting Right3 Act, you have the right to seek adeclaratory judeat from the United States DistrictCourt for cIae District of Columbia that these districtsneither have the purpose nor will have the effect ofdenying or abridging the right to vote on account ofrace or color or in contravention of the guaranteesset forth is Section 4(f) of the Act. However, untiland unless such a judgment is obtained , the provisicusobjected to are uneniorceabie.


4

USA_00012636


S

I apologize for any inccuvenience that mayhave been caused to you by cur error in this ma tear.

Sincerely,

J. Stanley ?ottiagerAssistant Attorney General

Civil Rights Division


4

USA 00012637


JAN

Honorable Mark WhiteSecretary of State of TexasCapitol StationAustin, Texas 78711

Dear Mr. Secretary:

This is in reply to your submission of thesubdis tric tings of 9 multimember Texas House ofRepresentatives districts in House Bill 1097 ofthe 1975 Session of the Texas Legislature, to theAttorney General pursuant to Section 5 of t'•e VotingRights Act of 1965. Your submission was receivedon November 26, 1975.

We have considered carefully the submittedchanges and supporting materials as well as infor-maLi.on and comments received from other interestedparties and information derived from the proceedingsin the cases consolidated sub nom , Graves v, Barnes ,Civil Action No. A-71-CA-142 (W.D. Tex.) . on thebasis of our review and analysis, the Attorney Generaldoes not interpose an objection with regard to changesthat may be effected by House Bill 1097 in Districts1 through 6, 8 through 31, and 33 through 101. How-ever, we feel a responsibility to point out thatSection 5 of the Voting Rights Act expressly providesthat the failure of the Attorney General to objectdoes not bar any subsequent judicial action to enjointhe enforcement of such changes.

In conduct ing our Section 5 review of legis-

lative districtings , such as those contained in

house Szll 1097, we evaluate the of ect of the


USA_00012638


resulting districts on racial and language minoritygroups in the lighc of fairly drawn availabledistricting alternatives and the legislature'saffirmative duty as represented by White v. Rezester ,412 U.S. 755 (1973), and related cases (see, e.g .,City of Petersburg (Va.) v. United States , 354 F. Supp.1021 Q. D.C. L972), of 'd , 410_U.S. 962 (1973)) toassure that the voting rights of cognizable racialminorities are not minimized or diluted.

With respect to the effect of the new single-member districts defined in House Bill 1097 forJefferson County, Districts 7A-7C, our analysis showsthat the subdistric ting may be affected to a substantialdegree by the eaten t to which the boundaries of pre-viously existing multimember district 7 are changedand the manner in which it is done. While alterationof the multimember district boundaries to accommodatethe subdistricting would appear to be a legitimateconsideration by the state, it also appears that,from available alternatives, the subdistricting linesadopted in House Bill 1097 have an unnecessary dilutiveeffect. The location of single-member district linesalmost evenly divides the county's minority populationamong the county's three new single-member districts,none of the three districts has a significant minoritypopulation, such a division appears to be unnecessaryon the basis of natural boundaries or overridingconsiderations of district compactness or on the basis

of any compelling governmental justification, and atleast one single-member district with a significant.

minority population would result under fairly drawnalternative districting plans.


USA_00012639


3

a..Regarding Districts 32A-321 in Tarrant Countyit appears that portions of the new single-memberdistrict lines are drawn through cognizable minorityresidential concentrations resulting is an apportion-ment or fragmenting of those areas into 4 districtsonly one has a significant minority population,while fairly drawn alternative districting plans wouldavoid placing portions of the minority residentialconcentrations in as many districts and would resulin two districts with significant minority populations.We note that at least two of the districting alternativespresented to the Court prior to its order of January 23,1975, in Graves v. Barnes , avoided the fragmenting ofcognizable minority residential areas in Tarrant Countythat results from House Bill 1097. As we found with

County

regard to the submitted districting in Jefferson County,the result in House Bill 1097 for Tarrant County doesnot appear to be necessary on the basis- of naturalboundaries or overriding considerations of districtcompactness or on the basis of any compelling govern-mental justification.

Thus, our evaluation indicates that the fragmentingof cognizable minority residential concentrations inJefferson and Tarrant Counties will have a dilutiveeffect on minority voting strength , and accordingly,we are unable to conclude as we must under Section 5that implementation of the districts 7A-7C and 32A-321set out in House Bill 1097 for Jefferson and TarrantCounties will not have a discriminatory effect. Underthese circumstances I mist , on behalf of the Attorney

General, interpose an objection to the implementationof the specified districts se.: out in House Bill 1097

for Jefferson and Tarrant Counties.


USA 00012640


4

Of course, as provided by Section 5 of theVoting Rights Act, you have the right to seek adecl.r_acory judgment from the United States DistrictCourt for the District of Columbia that these districtsneither have the purpose nor will have the effect ofdenying or abridging the right to vote on account ofrace or color or in contravention of the guaranteesset forth in Section 4(f) of the Act. However, untiland unless such a judgment is obtained , the provisionsobjected to are unenforceable.

Sincerely,

J. Stanlyi iottinn rAssistant Attorney General



USA 00012641


zenorab1_ Ic White.ecretary of Wtata of TexasCapitol StationAustin, Texas 73711

Dear iir.. :7scre terry:

This is in raferenca to cur latter ofJanuary 23, 1976, and in further reply to yoursubmission of the subdistrictings of 9 multi-member Teaxau House of lepresentativea districtsin House Bill 1097 of the 1575 Session of theTexas Legislature, to the Attorney Generalpursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Actof 1965. Your submIasien was received onNovember 2C, '11.975.

We responded to your submission prior toJanuary 26 , 1976 , the last day of the 60 -day periodAs set out in Secticu 51.22 of our procedural guide-lines for the administration of Section 5, 28 C.F.R.151.22:

When a decision not to object ismade within the 60-day periodfollowing receipt of a submissionwhich satisfies the requirementsof 551.10(a), the Attorney Generalmay reexamine the submission ifadditional inforation cornea tohis attention during the remainderof the 60-day period which wouldrequire objection in accordancewith 151.19.

cc: Public File ;(Rm. 920)X0614


USA 00012642


Such additional information has come tour attsntlcn and we have reexamined the submissionof House Bill 1.097 with regard to the effect ofnew sinnle-member districts defined in House Bill1097 ror uec:3 County , Districts 48A through 48C.

The additional information. is this regardconcerned the minority population within the single-member districting plans for Nueces County presentadto the C ou.Kt prior to its order of January 28, 1975,in Graves U. Barnes . During our initial examina tion.of the districts set out in House Bill 1097 forVueces County we erroneously considered the populationstatistics of the ply submitted to the Court by theState as statistics relative to the plan which the Courtadopted. Ca that erroneous 'oasis we had detsxmiaedthat the plan set out in House Bill 1097 would notdilute minority voting strength given the resultsthat would flow from fairly drawn alterativedistricting plans.

Cur evaluation of the new single-member districtsin House Bill 1097 for Nueces County indicated that thedistrict lines are drawn through a cognizable minorityresidential area known as 'the corridor" in CorpusChristi resulting in an app t or fragmeltingof that area into each of tYLe 3 districts, only inone of which minorities represent a majority of thepopulation .. It was our understanding that inapproaching the question of hoi to draw new single-member districts for Vices County, the legislatureutilized the theory that a fair districting of thecounty, given the county's population , should bedesigned to result in one " safe" iiezican»Americaadistrict, one safe Anglo district , and one "swing"^istrict with close to 50. Anglo and Mezicaa-=rican population.


USA 00012643


3

We had no obj ection to this district;approach as loaq as it did not result in a dilutiono minority voting ttrength and, as I explainedabove, ,iven our erroneous understanding of availabiedistricting alt:=ative we found no such dilutionwould result. However, we now realize that thedistricting plan .or Nueces County adopted by theCourt is Graves v . Barnes , which apportions thecorridor into only 2 districts, results in 2 districtsin which minorities represent a significant majorityof the population . Thus, on the basis of our previousevaluation and in the light of population statisticsof the districting plan ordered by the Court in Gravesv. Barnes, it appears that fairly drawn alternativedistricting plans which avoid fragmenting the corridorinto as many as 3 districts also would make asignificant difference in the ability of minorityresidents of Nuecas County to elect representativesof their choice . In addition , we have determined,as we had determined previously , that the result inhouse Bill 1097 for :ueces County does not appear tobe necessary on the basis of natural boundaries oroverriding considerations of district compactness.

Therefore , the remaining question is whetherthe legislative approach for the distzcting of macesCounty constitutes a compelling governmental justi-fication for the results that it acuiaved in RuecesCounty. I believe it does not . Although the theoryused in House Bill 1097 for apportioning the popu-lation of tueces County could, under other circumstances,be considered to reflect. a legitimate interest of thestate, under the standards for cur Section 5 reviewas enunciated in my lettar of January 23, 1976, andgiven the facts as described above , I view theapportionment approach used in House Bill 1097 for


USA 00012644


r U ce3 CL-, ty as a miaimi.:ation and thus a dilutionof minority voting stx :l th since it u=eces3a Iyand unfairly limits miaoritiss to only ono districtis which they would represent a majority of thpopulation.

Accordingly, we are unable to conclude as wemust under Section 5 that implementaticzn of thedistricts 43A - 48C set out in House Bill 1097 forNueces County will not have a discriminatory effect.Uader these circtmstaces I must, on behalf of theAttorney General, interpose an objection to theimplementation of the specified districts set outiZ House Bill 1097 for Iiuacas Ca uty. So thatthere be no misunderstanding , I should point outthat the objection interposed herein is in additionto the objections interposed in my letter ofJanuary 23, 1976, to the implementation of thedistricts 7A » 7C and 32A - 3 21 set out in Hou eBill 1097 for Jefferson and Tarrant Counties.

Of course, as provided by Section 5 of theVoting Right3 Act, you have the right to seek adeclaratory judeat from the United States DistrictCourt for cIae District of Columbia that these districtsneither have the purpose nor will have the effect ofdenying or abridging the right to vote on account ofrace or color or in contravention of the guaranteesset forth is Section 4(f) of the Act. However, untiland unless such a judgment is obtained , the provisicusobjected to are uneniorceabie.


4

USA 00012645


S

I apologize for any inccuvenience that mayhave been caused to you by cur error in this ma tear.

Sincerely,

J. Stanley ?ottiagerAssistant Attorney General



4

USA 00012646


X3 7 1[FACSIMILE]

October 13, 1976

Honorable Leo DarleyCounty JudgeCounty CourthouseUvalde , Texas 78801

Dear Judge Darley:

This is in reference to the reapportionment of Commissioner'sCourt Precincts in Uvalde County, Texas submitted to the AttorneyGeneral pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, asamended. Your submission was completed on August 14, 1976.

We have considered the submitted changes and supportingmaterials as well as information and comments received from otherinterested parties . Our review and analysis shows that , accordingto the 1970 Census, Uvalde County is 50.7 % Mexican-Americans, 47.5%Anglo and 1.8% Black. Information available to us indicates thatCommissioner Precinct 2 under the redistricting plan has an over-whelming concentration of Mexican-Americans , and in addition exceedsthe norm of an ideal ( population ) district by a percentage of atleast 11%. The other precincts , two of which are substantiallyunderrepresented, apparently have deviations of similar scope result-ing in a total deviation range in excess of 20 %. Thus , it wouldappear that the precinct with the highest percentage of Mexican-Americans is the most underrepresented while at least two of theremaining precincts , each with evident Anglo population majorities,show deviations indicating overrepresentation.

We note that the reapportionment is based on registered voterstatistics. Our experience indicates that Mexican-Americans generallyhave a lower rate of voter registration than do Angles. Thus anapportionment based on registration data is likely to have a dilutiveeffect on the vote of Mexican-Americans. See E v Klahr, 403 U.S.108, 113-15 (1971) (Douglas, J., concurring). Our analysisfurthershows that there is evidence that MexicanAmericans have not beenafforded access to the political process in Uvalde County. Whenthese considerations are noted, together with the configuration ofthe plan, particularly with the elongated hour-glass shape ofprecinct 1 which is developed with the Mexican-American populationin the minority, we cannot conclude, as we must under the VotingRights Act, that this reapportionment does not have the purpose oreffect of abridging the right to vote of the Mexican-Americancitizens of Uvalde County.


USA 00012647


Accordingly, in view of our analysis and recent court deci-sions to which we feel obligated to give great weight, e.g., Whitev. Regester , 412 U.S. 755 (1975); Robinson v. Commissioner ' s Court,Anderson County , 505 F.2d 674 (1974), must, on behalf o t eAttorney General, interpose an objection to the 1973 redistrictingof Uvalde County.

Of course, as provided by Section 5 of the Voting RightsAct, you have the alternative of instituting an action in theUnited States District Court for the District of Columbia seekinga declaratory judgment that the redistricting plan does not havethe purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridgingthe right to vote to members of a language minority group in theCounty. However, until and unless such a judgment is obtained,the 1973 Uvalde redistricting plan is legally unenforceable.

Sincerely,

J. STANLEY POTTINGERAssistant Attorney GeneralCivil Rights Division


USA 00012648


..x . Hayden BurnsButler, Bixnion, ,:icw, Cook

& 3{111;'a

rW'torneys at Law

1?Q0 i',sperSon BuildingRou`.1-ton, 1'caxaa 77002

Dear £s3" . Burns

JUL 2'7 1976

This is in reference to the redistricting of.,runty C isaionor and justice Precincts and changein lection precincts of Waller County, Tc,-,fas, submitt dtwo the attorney General pursuant to s

r-ct

ion 5 of the

Voting ;:fights :ct of 1965 , as amended. Your submission

was completed on xj, y 23, 1976.

We wave considered the submitted changes andsupporting materials as well as information and centsreceived from other intere-stod parties. Tccording to the1M Census, Waller County is 52.5% black, 43.3% white and

. l . .can--damori.can .

:.:ac .a1 breakdowns , by race, for the old and newoorcnismioner precincts were not supplied by the Coon-y.4, breakdown of registered voter figures, by raga, for theold and new commissioner precincts is not- a sufficientr;eans by which to evaluate the redistricting plan. OLtrt:xperience indicates that blacks have a lower rate ofvoter registration than do whites. Thus an apportionmentbased on registration data is likely to have a dilutiveeffect on the votF, of blacks. See '' J. :?ahr, 403 U.S.103, 116--119 (971) (Douglas, µa:. , uoncurr further,this approach to reapr^orticrsscrezt has been uphold by theStprcne Cc-urt only when it ;produces a distribution ofleyialai ors not substantially diwferent fron that jhici1would have rosulted from the use of a Permissible popAula-Uon base (Burns v. ..itharc.iscn ; 3134 U.S. 73, 93(1966)).

cc: Public FileX2128-2130


USA 00012649


OM

L.ra t.Us Zc5ra re., wii'.I. tai^.w ;j artici,[<ii.r ^«1

7e w.', . u i+i*

fac t n iklr :wire NLB :i '3"j. x tia $w .:i t

f: rawly

2, V IC :.OSit 3t:4dL .t3 at prt:r,i„aL artjt blac4;

».àir iF W t':'.ivslarsi l ' c C'J ' 4. 1l.LA 4:1 .

i i yo Aj W& ur t .;,u:31wr.'." st' i.-.'.: „$ ";1< do not eQt t:w,

ff;= voi:iu Ce%3,;. .it]a d in of t:L,z

+ i .rf^.'. ; 3 tl.ia:t w-,`Ll i.1ka w r* :wt *CnLa .'+i $rl± is tk;l

s°S`v: A>s i au s'':G"4 la:'ti`. 2-y

;a^011#'rar F the .^tat.':L$or, '.:x^" ;:s S. -

i0 a5alOU L S*aa" ^1 O"t rot^.l.'âiw 'wî^1 %d.ii ,nd .ia : ` i'iCI i a .Jq; {."} )

of r+: OWac wa Mal to violate tl j- '^.f""î%i:^?Gd.i Ar`.w,ii' 3{{:`; t s #

cqC '^„ac^ry. ,pret tim, iâ4i^.3.vae k sa,",S- . , _.. $......: 'aV..-2 ",24 1.2 3.)

( th ..fir. :.:)13)) ';4,,4 the :C*4v y . i Pr a>atnaTwo;; .iz r wr ^.e: , ^<^: w i= = e r r ^-otTchars-

a,.v:C4c `liti.: "{eta t€+^"^ : it.. es plan. O f..'.'x es a *,7,4JM iaa.nt

ov io o2the potential black vG

ta

r:: , û^

^w

;tioIiar 'Y

:^

^..

_'^ .tyr

^^

a .Z, LaSrts^âl.â 4vT.:i"'{V^

not :.y.bi 4 T..^M11^wYiF.}}fw

^r..~r*cipiîy^^r^

s ^}

i U' C r L. sir' ^..ypayn VOti 4 atr.U; *.h ii, is.a 5+. - Tw d^F tti`Qr 4 f

T,"-Qvi ha =, o the. only Llac az4jori :«.t*tr ic "t.is of wI t: ,NAw Z, 040 . ;ti

p

a:'rf^! than th P ^.:;^p j

aw g

'tv

-'.

to. .aSiK . ,:ate .€t ". of t p^Gal la .1d*ata F 3.

W,.,S:r33^ 3i:L atf'„ 'isr i + wiAct. afi are

w tau Cv-w =4ay .wi a!4o'':tz r ._ -x

t

!QrU

,. -*4 va-

.., . f; a s aa we m{.=i. ud .f.z

4Fi

,..wavsir

'

r A },r-,w,-^r.

F' 1,. .i+ t 4rAlS not

zz- "it4tì.14. tii-- riv "wi.. t we of time w itch i.in r w .

51 = iKiC

=a

Ll v i rev Of 4tualy

vCxitL'^ izt 3s : 9t] #$^xs to Iii 'sick to qive _Sr4i '

r3-> i1^srt* th 197: r4di3triitL:v of


USA 00012650


-".,i` 'wr .S ou 'S/e ^•..'R13'3}. i +L".j-.w'^':.^R ^{.*^ °:3 :°,a,.r =:. î,'"â^4'}; ::."- +,1i2

,L. Vin, E w...

• :' , ` :} '.' ^. ^ -^. a ;,•6' ,. '- %: ifsw - c r' .^. - s.

N^C:T,.^-^`,.s ^.aa ^ ,r^s ^.a-i a+ ,..^: .-',k,»r^:3^.Zi""•.

y yE tt oa s a r ^^.ak li! ^

y^^ .,p a..W^_:

a.;oot..^Nti.e

.rr1"Y#.. A^ L...t4 . r .F Mr •' îd. Wu`^:'^:s .Si„ I:.Y:ry4.wr ^:i Aj+rbf. r:rA, n- Î .:s.hY•r^ZM.1

d 3:':Ci t rGf x'' ot. -&'zit, v t i itl ;", : 1;^ : ill 3.,avi ' .: m

i ,^c"sti or ..yKw'.Cl..^•. ^.s:^ .:::à#. t: `yS^4.1

y^^^ Why #. -:y'„<di ^Y rrA ^ wfrê-L^.w

y. -Yî1Â,î^+li

g^N.'.p^'aF ^N ^ '^r:;..Y^^.-Ay

.i .'.i rf^:^'C .SrR •A^'S !w"f '.,^Y 4ti f•> •r 'yi..: ..L• w# ^,{^t,4f.4t .Y ?:%Liiill y.i. i' :^+i _'.^ ice. .^ pp•3


USA 00012651


Lanorable L. W. ScottCounty JudgeCaldwe ll CountyF oL3 L OfficeOffice Sax 10 50luc.Hart, `texas 73644

Mar Judge Scott

TIis i3 in reference to We redistricting ofcomrissio4e= precincts in Caldwell County, Tcxas, siu1 fittedto the :Attorney General pursuant to Section 5 of the Vot±r c1rights Act of 1965, as amended. Your oricinal sub is: icnwas received on April 3, 1976. tu6ditional infor::iation Y.az:.-cnived on Sc?te:b r 7, 1976, and June 3, 1977.

Wc. lhutvo riven careful conaidoration to the ir.fori;,.a-Lior. ?^irr.i^?ter', by you as well as Bureau of the on3us dataUn in%rzattan and comments Iron interested parties. W.the basi s of our analysis, we are unable to conclude, anwe must under the Voting Lights Act, that the 1373rt di ,trictinc of cow-mJ sinner precinct3 in Caldwell Countywill not have a discriminatory effect on minority groupsin W : county.

Our analysis reveals that Neuicau Americans constituteover 30 percent of the population of Caldwell county and!sat blacks constitute between 13 and 21 percent of the7ounty population . To make a determination under Scction 5with respect to the commissioner precincts we :Lend to knowthe racial composition of t aso precincts . The atatizticaiinfor ation that you have provided does not enable s toWetorrzinc this racial composition . Although our indepeidentr::searc4 suggosts preliminarily that the precincts do notnave a discriminatory Mew, we have no basis for beingonfident in this conclusion.


USA 00012652


:. ^.^t rr_ev ; :ncra? ` s Procedures for thetraticn o f Zc.ction S of the voting iights Ant provide that;

if time evidercoo as to the . . . Mact ofthe change is conflicting, and the AttorneyCo eras is unable to resolve the conflictwithin tha 60-day period, he shall, consistentwith the above--described burden of proofapplicable in the uistrict Court, enter anabjection and so notify the r3u nI:tine authority.

(it C.M. :1.10).

^:cor:3.^tgly, I rust, at this time, on behalf cf the7.Lorn©v General, interpose an objection to the redistrictingof corrissioner precincts in Caldwell County . i:owever, weLava requested the Census Bureau to provide us with enumera-tion district statistics on the location of Mexican :srericansin the county. ,,;Would this inworration indicate that theredistricting plan does not fragment the minority populationof Caldwell County or should the county be able to providenew information shoving that the redistricting does notadvesely effect the potential of minority groups in thecounty to elect a candidate of their choice , we will bewilling to reconsider the objection.

Sincerely,

Drew S. Days IIIAssistant Attorneys General



USA 00012653


APR 2 8 1978

I

Mr. Ja L. Jr.t''cn my AttorneyXx'ansas County Courthousel'ockport, oara.s 7U332

I7 rar lir. Andat olt i

r leis in in rsfaraace to the radistricLir- of aoLsizissicaarprecincts of Aransas CO-azty, 'exas , subraitte to the AttorziayC Loral pursuant to 8oction 5 of the Voting Uighto rot of 19V'5446 ar-z ndad.

Your initial letter was raccivud on +%tcwo;' r177. on rebruary 17 Arad March lol2, L97C, we requcsLvdadditional information with roapeut to this auL•miusionto enable ua to analyxe w3 ather t3 a redi xtrictinc, ,ias

purpo o or will have tho effect of abridgincj theright to voto on account of race:, color, or mborshipin a: lar•auaga mitiority group. Your raspondi4g, ettsarss,r ived by us on February 2., and April 12, 197h,provided sores, L'ut not all , of the information 'rcquostod.;LithosAgh the submieastion of tha readiatrioting cannot becorsiA d coplete, you Lava requested that wo r 1;ew accotarr ination As soon as possible on tai basis of theinformation available to us.

Wader section 5 the burden is on the juriadictionproposing a votixig change to show t At the new practice or;eroac4uro is not diocrilainatory In purpose or effect:. a' ltburden of proof is the aa= v t A aubjAic ton is xads tothe J1;,ttornoy Gel%eral as it would be in a , uit for a decl.ara--Lory juft t under 2eotion S brought in the United StatesDistrict Court for the District of Co1w bia. :ke rystrt 5ia v.t nited States, 411 S. 52G (1973 } • zha. I'rocadureu vsClio

ulstWtl&^ of Section 5 of the Voting RiOts Act of 190j,C.Y.It. $1.19, statae


USA 00012654


if the uVith ncc au to tio vurpoacc or offcot of thecham i u conflist inq, az;d the Attorney (orterai. ; r'a le to roavly the conflict within th *O-c ayperiod, :xo s a .l, corsaxist.nt with the m ere-c c a c:r :burden of proof Applicable in the distzict co.;rt,enter aa objectiosi . . .

We have analyzed the inforn,.tion contained 3n yoursu :.!.r lion ana data obtained frou:i the zz c:xxu of the Qoa.uuin the light Qf ra:3.cvant~ ju&icial decisions. Ica, o.cr..Nir%ca v. And g Ii c^ s4ri of uv''rv so]'.' {_, 554 i?:M '135%

IT, t:::Cir. 1977), crsrt. dcaaiQZ? 4G U.S.L.R. 3357 (Nov. it 1977) ;; obinaou v. Co zianiontsrs Coart, ' 55 P. yid (74 (5th ,ir. 1574).wr aai^c3ynis'^xiv 1s: t t 1: 7;^ o ulatiory of Manaus County

wou A, i , of whicL 2,372 or 27 percent were of Spanish hori-tc ge. ".1ho population of the county has on w tiMat..d tohave Leen 10,507; tha StatxiaL uar:tt:agn proportion of t xitdumber is not kaow,a. iu 1970 the blao3 p pulatio* of thec ::...t,"'f waa 411, or 4hout 5 pwreaAt of the total. ..fie 1975Mack population is not known. We haves not boon provided4Lt total population of the four cos :i.aaio r precincts,#;itl: er .under the old plat or the new plaza. Thus we io notknow the extent to which tho old AA deviated from OhmIre ui.rcaments of the ono parson, oua vote priuoiplo, theei tent to which aAy such devirztion has heron rvr adi d by ti cnow an, nor the *ffcct, if any, of that. re4ying upon ttzo

grit; votipq str:cswth. 7e also have rat :peen rmvi.-n.cdwith the racial eowl?oeition of tha old or saw ,istrictis.

on tho bazis of votor rerjizatratlo statistics cudAM.h count data from the 1970 can suss, Lowovor, it ap:iroarcathat c concentration of yo;cica A QXiOAri i'.i :htCi'f~7 of Aoc»;.or t ETaz divided, cr the old p1aa , Mweer,s i siouer Praciucta l and 2, %Ad that ir,hi% division isNalntai=4 undir W new plan. We note further that thc:N:acon ':.iasioner prc:ci i;ts with toe cjroAtest concentration, ofttcxtcun American ragistared voters, zxtC bers 1 2, altohave significantly more ragi6t xrarl voters than th raoaininutwo proci: ts. If, as io frequently the casur t:h a : tcxlcz"nAi:wrica n roc iatration rata iu lower than tho tu;jlo regisstrax-tion rato, this leads to the distinct possi1 ility that thedistricting plan tail to +xatiefy the ono pera:on, OAn voteprinciple, and that tho u4c cerrupreacntod pracincts are t~honfC.With the Sraaate t Uexican l rie n concentration. -e 1y v.ati.ahrr, 4O3 U .S. 1O^i . (iS71) . .


USA 00012655


a

in addition, it in our undo r:xtanding that ninoriti* swere not awwultud with ;espf,:ct to tho cr :utioxt or awoptionof ti.:e now plan, and that tic minorities havz been olec:. ,dto tho Coji.Dissioiscrs Court. An ai alysi,s of a leotion reixtrr,saiul voter registration data by voter pr -uirct leathi to anlnf :rtac4 that support for P.axi :an Airariaan candidatescomea largely from t;uxican .1FA; ;ioaan voter* and, thus, thatracial bloc voting txict3.

under thesa circus tan .os, we are una1;lo to coAoludethat the county has carried its burden of proving that thesubmitted redistricting plan for Aranaa3 County will nothave the effect of diluting the votLt of MLaxicari ncricansin A.,ranams County. Accordingly, on batialt of flee AttorneyCcnoral, l rust inter oae art ohjo;tion to thin plan.

Of cease, aG provided by Section ^ of the Votingd.gt is :Ott you have tho right to iook a daalarator4 ju %paent:from the tk4itod States District Court for the tie rict ofColumbia that this change ham neither the purpaeQ nor willhave the offeot of donyinr; or abri cling tho right to voteon accountof race or color. in a hiition, t;a Proce4ure3for th,a Administration of Soetion (? O CJ.r%.. a1.2 (b ) ,51.2 3 , and 51.24) permit you to req&ew t the Attorney rse i ralto rocoueider the a joctioi. until the objectionis withdrawn or the jud nt from the District of Colu ;iaCourt obtained, iho effect of the objection, by the Attorneya ;natal in to mx tl%o redistricting plan legally abla.

S.i i cerely,

Prow S. flays IIIi s istant Attorney 04neral

Civil fig tta 3)ivisicm

cla l ;onorable John 0. W ndellcounty .iuac

tea. Lola Bouni r, Chairazuaranaae County D nooratic Party

Y,:r. iickrold :Thiri y, chairrar.Aransas County f-:-.publican Party


USA 00012656


^3' •

•r)

o tor~{

rr^ r^ rti rA

(w i Gi ti O it

J Cl^' 7 L} tJ

k3ir-$

4

r ]

L7

Pr{Ft

#

• r 1

^

rz^

r .'• ' r' C. .

f) 0 'u 0 U

I(

r, r

Q v-1

C) f^ 3iIn 1-i . ru

O 34i. r I .^•Or` •IJ r

(!) rt)_I rr f"

t.) C) Z ri

.rJ •e-I rJ

CJ C) rIrf P t P3.1 V t ,4 -'-1 -r.1 0!A E •3J C)

•r-I $1 CC']:J >

C'I31 o

rj'I-)

0

tU Q ^Q Ea to

.1..} }r -r

0410

0 4J3•C 4 0 3•#

-^ )

(JV4 o

() .r)

U34) 43

rti1U .

•i-4 Y -1= tiJ

C'l C)to -!•1 3-Ir{ j

E-1 .3 t^

3-rrI 3-IU L1) L`]

o+} \7 r^

3 I li C1 [31r3 r# ,-'f

rl T7^rf Lr t}] `r-I In C: U "#-U

r^V Q $4 3.1 3 (3 rCi •ri

^,.

4J 3-3 .: r 0 o f

1 rt o o . ' o r= tl.! "J • # 14.4 r-

(11 t } _ •r3 C) r I e () (J sJ [ FJlC!4 fJ

^ ] l` L? ;1 •r{ t'i ) 4.3 r,1 r-1

f: ---' fl . rj r- C? CR q4 S: fit r-!.- i; U] r•# rI a 0 tr .r-1 :J 3# •

rJ Q t'; •rf .r.J f.. [U 4

C.1`ILi I--

O r)} ^:rI ri r1 Q0

Cf) $4} 0

0 (NU

In

rf I.C::

tl'''

f e L`}US

~ <fyr4

rnNN

rHy { 4.) • r f C!) It) J.! 0

0 O$4 43 rl 0 w 0

!iI () £ 4J 0i!stl-I

yr-f 0

3 O 41 1• (] 4J U rI 1e

• L" ]i0 s;.^•rl-U rl) N Q d r{ rr.•'4 G) U UC] GS }i 0 0 -f,J -3J ,-1 t; tl) [-'< r: fu ',] rf N C' •,..}

,1-) .~-' n.1 ,^.1 i•r>, ,y

',..s ^ h .r'f (1 Cif tilr^

:'3 ^!

0 r, 0)U] •rf ,^ JJ )# r•f . •^ c $ (U s f © 44 r.-^H/ r^^/ ^nn

-2J L 3-I t7 . ^_ --: rCC r^ ^' L^ !J L'^'-', ' l_; ry

t, C h .;J ^', :-r Q U; -r# Cl) ~ i •r# Cr •r-I (!}

.- :_ ; t74 (J i J ^., •r•l 1:, • S S-I C.) .)^Q 3 r-I

tor} 1 ;Tt rJ i I

ray

) w♦J

'r# yr^J Q r j • .i3 O .^ ^' ,f] r.L fi •r-l U

JS _'r3 Q C) • rd •f-) NJ •r I !.)r-I C .-t tSs r ••-Ir3 ;J Cl e:- f; ' 4 U i 4-r !J r1

3 Ud 7 42 •r# U fU rf y Q ] () -1ro C Cl

i- . )_: P O• •r-I rsC: 0 °J tr J r-f $-) •-H •r# U N ^•) rJr^ it C} 'ii U P., Q 3.C d J 3l Q o r,^ r.1 U•r1 r+ •f! v i C} t?f ., J r-{ r r r f '[ k C: -1 4

.-. N_i {}

l'^ ru rJ r-1 •)-) r# L+• yr M :j Q fu U)u

r: r} tilt G Ai (7) .:-{ to o N Ct 0 P C) )

U •r# f-. 4) r„1, 4) (sfo

}•I Er. -43 41 • i.7 rVl f! i r-f ri {cap 'Cl 00 0 0 !^y -:j -I rj -PQ

,• IW

!O

. /34/^ •ri

fOr (

U/^

rl , f r-•I e) :i 41 d/

--

) U '.4

to 0y

1 3{-P 0 I :>I

l; rG u# 0 0 41 -Ii U -H 3# f?} •r} 4J C11 ;.)"J 0 34 O 0 b] 3 N •P CG U r, :-# rJ r'J r-# -IJ

is r-# 0 n] fli U 5t Yf r) 0 C) ^J U ;J V) : tol O 4r3 r`1 •1J Qr rL rll CS} ' 41 rl :] 0 V rf 0 P

U 0 L" tS C) i 4-3 Cl •rl L :--'r ra. , • -') ri C) rI C),a. U 34 > 3) .{J In e. r; f4 C) 4) r-I dJ , C)

r~ Ct) (d U) O C) U •r{ S I C] r) r3 rJ #J

CJ 6] .r., .IJ ^; • -1 [: r^ TJ u) r,3 • ^' fM r-I U CI)'y7 fJ Q -'r) '.) v J 3-) .'-a' r-l •r1 (} o C- h o U i$ri C) ,)•) 41 0 ^-a r1 (i, U JJ r> 0 O •-I i7 -wt E'a rJ u; 3-4

0 [rt •-1 41 f r-i G, rat :: •r 11 .- ^J 0 r1y^ i.9 r) --l 7j 1] fJ C} iE7 rj r a •}J ^! {1 ri 11 $4

U r't H (P1 C7 ; ^ i C} Q} ;= r dJ -'J r I U' r1 I r1 3 f r E 3 i * :rrti rJ iddJ j^ ) Ulrs (•r4r--f•I 0 ti-4 0'3

la -,-l

( :-I Q cJ •+) U] r, )v :1 C) 34 r! '-;1 r 'r I i:, •rl1 ,;:; •-! 0 t'_) i1 C) r•.j 0 O •,-1 C13 U C) (' c_ 4-r s; Ill ri

^- r) ,J G^. r" IJ i I .`' ri U ! L; t () '•-'l O 3J 3- r•rf rj UI f "' r '-'] rd {J .rf r-

r q+t1 0 0

Ely E ,)7 U r;3 ^s ?t 17 r`f C'J C) 'S s! 3^ i•rl 3! L' _J U . 3 •r3 r l I) r! > I ^) 4 ;.1 'rf !4

H 3-I 1 , 34 •r2 ry .'. :J !•) L.I r^^) H U 4J C)0 rJ 3-;1 4-1 rl C) '' r :^ 1J• -I r7 .. i 3 I r 0P" `.3 0 (3 0 C) •rl -rl fti '3 ^} f> f C-' 0 f

-! t 1 :) 14 .) C) r-1 r:F > 34

Cl)


^l)

CDOO

N61U-IOC)

r C 1) C. I i 0Cb _'.o 0 0, C C "J ri

0 (D 41rt•w0Co Cir2,u H• r' a (t

1-4 {h H . C! `v7 ; f i > ' C7

1 C C r~ a C;, + C) C1O Ii _ rr U H 0

rp ci 2 fl

4^ H- C iJ^ h n 0 Y'' J

:7' f)-' FJ C) t-I P r3 C)rt ri- i i E^ :-t, 0

Fi it o H it ti'- rr I'- ID r 1 ' P C_" 4 Ca

m C) •P O' (* (t'J c

`' C;t J ' 0 0 I.1 [t0-i}O r:•H (J z 0 :31 ra ti

CC, a fit (jrJ^G OO D)

1jrr ri CLi- C) I1; r. K `7 r;7 ite.4 F-'. CI5 0 I- - ';r 0 it ,`.3' I1

rh Cu ra 0 tt CED ^, S'• ti 'd M ici 0 t't jam.

P C, H ' -' 0 0 CJ 19 Cr0 (D 11

1•-i C,r rt H- it (D :3' H• rt

P O C CD trv L7 r.' ft tiGNt 1'i ti till n00 rt H• CD C) cA H- :7 1^- C1)'i)H rr C)wLiH Ci: C):nc)

E3 H 0 -' H•LC f^• rh !f, C)rt1 t^ i^ r^ '^+ I1 r: 1 H• ft (D

0 r; tD tY C P O t) fj F'•^j Lo

O f7 rt rt I-i} rt N, U7 Pi rs'ft f't 1 (

W 0 ti i i--' O 1-5 CL 0.a iJ ,`•^ P ti O W 1 5

rr O rt C) iV . r^ P H • ^ uJ f i P-j I iQ 41 ti rh

n I- U U f; ,a' 1 i it P r rC) Li 1 i'-i P ;y rC^ w r2- C'^0. 1) P_ rop

0rt 011toC90- toC f% O it O (D J 1• 0

co i, - H- rr P I-'- C in t..i- tJ.

1'- 11 "'1 Lrjf'• ,'3' r1• • C O 1-i C1) F- )

f h H: r1• C) p• itf'• ii it 0' w Hs C) 0 rfi H

O C)LJ

S^ w r, k3

ti ht f-'- fr W C?

H 0 a r ;!•: E•-1'n ' O P, ,D

:; h i O i C) • Cu

`'t f) '^1 r1- C) f-i• f f C]r i CI' I- rt to i9 liL, .S C1' c)

i^ ,S ;;t ru t-a• C)C)itc,0C0 0

,J I-j 0 t3. rrf' ^'Cj EI 1;3 rr r in r• r,

• C7 f-i- () C) a'(4`30 0r

4e i

1 ^C it f-t C? 0 to• 0 ti H-

O o 0 " infl O tA)Li. CJ I i. t OC..' 3 V Ca thC) ?7J CD SL Wit C):i :sH--10

Q+Fr 00 0:5 ft

F{ ti CD I-'•t h CJo f-'• ti t:J P

r1 'F+ 40 0 Wk''J W

at r^ CJ E' { .

N ';a ft w

C),J rtf. rr F, ^+ L1 T ^'

H c-rrJ O n C)C) O 'J P.

Or hS 01 ri- j ti SJtS J f-. it tif' CD fv C) ,7 Ci

;; to Ii PCL) t, 4I s1 1;'

t]C-.- fi CJ


AUG 81978

Honorable Ernest F. &nithCounty JudgeHarrison CountyPost Office Drawer AMarshall, Texas 75670

Dear Judge Smith

'his is in reference to the 1975 rediatrictin+ ofcraams issioner precincts in Harrison county, 'texas, submittedto the Attorney General pursuant to Section 5 of the VotingRights Act, as amended. Your original submission was receivedon March 25, 1978. Additional information was requested onMay 24 , 1976 but to date has not been received.

Under Section 5 the burden is on the jurisdictionposing a voting change to show that the new practice orprocedure is not discriminatory in purpose or effect . Theburden of proof is the same when a submission is wade tothe Attorney General as it would be in a suit for a declara-tory judgment under Section 5 brought in the United StatesDistrict Court for the District of Columbia . See oeorqia V.United States , 411 U .S. 526 (1973). The Procedures for he

iriIstr on of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,28 C. F. H. 51.19, state;

If the evidence as to the purpose or effect of thechange is conflicting , and the Attorney General isunable to resolve the conflict within the 60-dayperiod, he shall, consistent with the above-describedburden of Proof applicable in the district court,enter an objection . . .

cc; Public File


USA 00012659


W:: have given careful consideration to the informationowigit ally furnished by you as well as Zt reau of the Census{'rata and afor Lion and gents from iaitorested artiesa.I•-, crur analysis sq arp, guided by relovar,t ju icial decisions .See, for exa fie ; trkae• v. bard of ;.; rvisorsofP .aC'cunt-N 554 F . 2d 1319(:nth Cir.) cont. eenied ; . S ... *33^ N v . !'11 (1977) , Robinson v. ^e i.ssie nerss Corr , .505F.24- 674 (5th Cir. 1 49 t

our analysis reveals that blae ss constitute 36 -aercentof the population of Harrison County. `z'Fse9a statistical infor-mation that you have provided doem not enable us to ce"paszathe racial composition of the n eo issio.-i r precincts withthat of they old. Oi r research indictees that the county'sblack population is fairly evenly distrilut , nq th'tfour ;precincts ,ad, in addition, ww za. 1d,rstU1 .hatblacks were not consulted concerning the cr'xatior't of thisplan. we r:Qte also that blacks have not been elected tothe county commission or to other county offices.

r't. .er these circumstances we are wtable to c .clude,as we cauat under the Voting :itTitts :.ct, that the newredistricting 3.lau for co .aeioner ,-recincta ,. oea not havethe purpose and will not have to offeot of diluting r irmorityvoting strength in vArriaon -'oufty. A!e:°corAiugly, on behalfof the Attorney eneral , I must irAterpose an objection to ther.sc iatricti. € Of ;„mot mis sionor -,.irecincts Ln ! rriso county.

Under the Procedures for the A.-Mini stratioA ofSaction 5 of the Voting 4-lights Act (42 C.P.A. 51.U(h) and(c),31.23, and 51.24) you nay request the PI-ttorney -p-,moral toreconsider this objection. In Uldition, „=ction 5 peraaitsyou to seek a declaratory Judgment from the t.r^i, wend Statesz4strict Court for the .istrict of ro3.url: is that this change,soeass not ha the mrposse and will not have the affect ofl: enjing or abridging the right to vote on account of race orcolor. +owever, until the objection is withdrawn or such aJudge nt is rendered ty that Court, the legal affect of theobjection by the ,--f :=rn,, y r-^: naral is to rar.dsr the chaiseuneuforceab.e .


USA_00012660


3

As this matter is the subject of litigation in the'District '.curt for the Eastern District of 'Texan , Marshall)ivistozz Watson v, arrison Cswnz, C.A. 4o. V".-75-45-M,l an taking` liberty- o s*ndin a copy of ttis letterto United States District Judge William P' . Stager mid tocounsel, in that cases.

sincerely o

Draw S.t.,Yays

I XI?assistant Attaraaey i naral

Civil. ?ig3 is Division

Co:United S watts District judge Tflliaw stagertarry R. raves, esquirePhillip Brie, $ ui"


USA 00012661


APR 14 1978

Mr. WW illlam T. ArmstrongFoster, Lewis, Langley, Gardner& Banack

Attorneys at Law1635 Frost Bank TowerSan Antonio, Texas 78205

Dear qtr. Armstrong

This Is In reference to the reapportionment of commissionerprecincts in M9edln. County, Texas, submitted to the AttorneyGereral pursuant to Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act of 1%3, asamended. Your submission was received an March 13, 1978. Inaccordance with your request expedited consideration has been giventhis submission pursuant to the procedural guidelines for theadministration of Section 3 (29 G.F.R. 31.22).

We have given careful consideration to the Informationfurnished by you as well as Bureau of the Census data and Informationand comments from other Interested parties. On the basis of ouranalysis, we are unable to conclu de, as we must under the VotingRights Act, that the submitted reapportionment of commissionerprecincts In Medina County will not have a d scriminatory effect onthe minority community of the county.

Out analysis reveals that, according to the 1970 Census,Mexican Americans constitute approximately 47% of the populationof Medina County. Under the present plait, the county's population Isdisproportionately distributed among the far precincts, vlolattng theone person-one vote principle. Mexican American s constltste 56.69%of the population to Precinct I and 4941% of Precinct 3. While werecognize that the proposed plan substantially remedies the oneperson-cite vote problem in the existing plan, In our view the effectof the new plan is to perpetuate denial of access by MexicanAmericans to the political process In Medina County.

cc: Public FileA4881


i

USA 00012662


2

E

In spite of the Mexican American 56.696 population majorityin Precinct 1 that group has been unable to achieve representation ont^e County C7ommis310n. We are, therefore , unable to conclude thatthe new plan's precincts having 35.66% and 50.89% Mexican-American majorities would serve to remove the political disadvantagecurrently suffered by the minority community in %Iedlna County.see, e.g., Kirksey Y. Board of Sys Isors of I- Inds Count 554 F.2d139 (1977).

Under these circumstances, therefore, I must, on behalf ofthe Attorney General, Interpose an objection to the reapportionmentplan for Medina County here under submission.

We have noted that widespread publicity was given and publicInput was invited In connection with the adoption of this plan. Wefurther note that at least two other plans were considered, one ofwhich was offered by the Mexican American Legal Defense andEducational Fund (MALDEF). The MALDEF plan, whilenoncontiguous due to the inclusion In Precinct I of all of severalseparate segments of Census enumeration district (ED) 7, contains aprecinct with a significant Mexican-American majority of 74% andcould easily be modified to remove the contiguity problems while onlyslightly Increasing the deviation.

Sections 51.23 to 51 .25 of the Attorney General's Section 3guidelines (23 C.F.R. 31.23-31.23) permit reconsideration of theobjection should you have new information bearing on the matter orshould the County Commission after Its plan so as to alleviate thedilutive effects discussed above. We are aware of the upcomingelections scheduled for May 6, 1973, and In view of that the AttorneyGeneral will be happy to expedite any such request forreconsideration. In any event please notify us Irmmediately, bytelephoning Voting Section Attorney David H. Hunter at 202/739-3849, of the action the Commissioners Court plans to talcs.

Of course, as provided by Section 3 of he Voting Rights Act,you have the right to seek a declaratory judgment from the DistrictCourt for the District of Columbia that this change has neither thepurpose nor the effect of abridging the right to vote on account ofrace, color or membership In a language minority group. However,until such time as the objection may be withdrawn or a judgmentfrom the District of Columbia Court Is obtained, the legal affect ofthe objection by the Attorney General is to render the change inquestion unenforceable. - .

Sincerely,

Drew S. Days 11lAssistant Attorney General



USA_00012663


MAR 2 4 1978Hr. Mike :as es;gren:: (lecea county AttorneyOeces County courthouse

Corpus Christi, Texas 78401

Dear -:r. 1iestergren

This is in reference to the reapportiontent ofcommissioner precincts in tuoces County, Texas, submitteedto the Attorney General pursuant to Section 5 of the VotingRights Act of 1965, as amended . Your submission was completeaupon our receipt on February 13, 1970, of the supplementalmaterial you provided. in accordance with your request wehave expedited our consideration of this matter pursuant tothe procedural guidelines for the administration of Section(28 C.F.R. 51.22).

We have given careful consideration to the informationfurnished by you as well as Bureau of the Census data , informa-tion and comments from other interested part,..ies , and materialsin our files from previous tueces County submissions . on thebasis of our analysis , we are unable to conclude , as we rustunder the Voting rights Act, that the submitted reapportionmentof commissioner precincts in ;ueces County will not have adiscriminatory effect on minority groups in the county.

Our analysis reveals that , according to the 1970Census, Mexican Averic" constitute approximately 44% ofthe population of Nuecea County . Under the submittedreapportionment plan, Mcxican A+rericans would cc.: stitute52% of the population of Cans issioner Precinct 2 and 81.6%of the population of commissioner Precinct 3. Under thepresent plan , Mexican Americans constitute 441 of thepopulation of Cotrmissioner Precinct 2 and 82.51 of thepopulation of Conaziissionor Precinct 3. Wile we recognizethat the proposed plan might be considered ameliorative, inour view there also are substantial indications that theplan sufficiently perpetuates denial of access by :1exicanAmericans to the political process in Nieces . County as tomake it constitutionally impermissible within the reaningof Beer Y. Lited Slates , 425 U.S. 130


USA 00012664


i

t

Factors indicative of denial of access to the politicalprocess were considered by the court when reviewing the Texasstate at-lace elective legislative districts for lueces County(Graves V. B es, 378 F. Supp . 640, 658-661 (1974 )). The courtthere found at under the at-large system the Lexican Ai ericanminority population in fueces County had less opportunity thanother residents to participate in the political processesand to elect legislators of their choice. We have beenprovided with no basis for concluding that the proposedreapportiorufnt plan for the Nueces County Commissioners`Court will not perpetuate this denial . By overly concentra-ting the Mexican American population in one precinct(Commissioner Precinct 3) the plan has the effect ofminimizing the impact of the Mexican 1werican vote inother precincts , notably Precinct 2. It appears thatfairly drawn alternative reapportionment plans couldeasily avoid this result.

Under these circumstances, therefore, we are unableto conclude, as we must under the Voting Rights Act, thatthe plan does not discriminate against Mexican Aneriaanvoters. Accordingly, on behalf of the Attorney General,I must interpose an objection to the reapportionment planhere under submission.

Of course , as provided by Section 5 of the VotingRights Act, you have the right to seek a declaratory judgmentfrom the District Court for the District of Columbia that thischange has neither the purpose nor the effect of denying oTabridging the right to vote on account of race, color ormembership in a language minority group . In addition,Sections 51.23 to 51.25 of the Attorney General's Section 5guidelines ( 28 C.F.R. 51.23-51.25) permit reconsideration ofthe objection should you have now information bearing on thematter. However, until such time as the objection may bewithdrawn or a judgment from the District of Columbia Courtis obtained , the legal effect of the objection by theAttorney General is to make the change in question unenforceable.

Sincerely,

JOHN S. RUERTA _ -Acting Assistant Attorney General

Civil Rights Division-

Defendant ' s Exhibit # DE-005598

USA 00012665


Al34)7' n451G;A3970-71

NLa 21 x.1978

ttr. George WikoffCity AttorneyCity o Port ArthurP. 0. Box 1O39Port -^rthur, Texas 7754

r.Dear :''r . Wii;of w :

TaLs is in reference to the consolidation of theCities of Port Arthur, Lakeview, and Pear Ride, Texas,and to the increase in size and redi tricting of resi-dency districts for the coasolid,sted city subtritted tothe Atto;ae General for review under Section 5 of tole;noting Rights Act of 1965, as amended. Your s brissioncri=es completed by our receipt of supplemental infor-a-i:ion on Tebruary 21, 1971. In accordance with yourrequest, we havegiven e}psdite3 consideration to thissubmission pursuant to the Procedures for the Adairni-s trawioa of S ction 5, 23 C . F. i4. 51.2Z.

Section 5 requires the Attorney General toexamine submitted changes affecting the electoralprocoza to etarmin crheetaer they have the purposo or,ri ll have the effect of denying or abridging the right_o vote on account of race, color , or ne.Nerahip in a1anRuace minority group. In raking; this d!_terminationcn behalf of the Attorney renMral, we are Cuidad by the1e e1 principles developed by the courts in the sare-or -analogous situation. The principal cases dealing wit:ltthe evaluation of a char a in the co:apo3ition of arun cipal electorate under Section 5 are Cit of=ti ic?^.^:oz ^c^ v. United States. 422 U.S. 35 (^'T and

flits OE pete:rsur!:^ v. United St ate s , 354 P. Supp. 1021(^. 7. C. ice} , azzirmea; 10-U.S. 962 (1973). Fo?+i*,^+..ng


USA_00012666


2

these cases, we have considered the effect of theconsolidation on the voting strength of the minoritypopulation in the affected area , racial votingpatterns, and the method of election to the citycouncil of the City of Port Arthur. Our analysis is-based on the materials and information you haveprovided as well as on information provided by andviews of other interested persons.

Our analysis has revealed that, according to1970 Census figures, prior to the consolidation blacksconstituted 41.0 percent of the population of Port Arthurand virtually none of the population of Lakeview andPear Ridge. Blacks will constitute 35.5 percent of thepopulation of the consolidated city. Thus; the consoli-dation results in a significant dilution of black votingstrength in Port Arthur.

Our analysis of election returns for Port Arthurelections also reveals an apparent unwillingness on thepart of the white electorate to support candidatesfavored by black voters in the'city. This conclusionis corroborated by the findings of Graves v.'Barnes ,378 F. Supp. 640, 648-50 (W.D. Texas=4) vacs onother grounds sub nom . White v. Re ester, 412.U.S. 755(1973) where the district court found tat minoritieshad been excluded from effective and meaningful partici-pation in Jefferson County, where Port Arthur is located.Because the city council of Port Arthur is elected at-large, the necessary effect of the consolidation wouldappear to be an enhancement of the power of the whitemajority to exclude blacks from effective participationin the political process. See City of Richmond , supra,.422 U. S. at 370.

We have considered whether the addition of aseventh council member and the redrawing of residencydistrict lines to create a second district the popula-tion of which is more than 90 percent black sufficientlyminimizes the dilution of black voting strength to enablethe consolidation to satisfy the judicial standards under


USA 00012667


3

Section ,. See City of Petersbur v. United States ,354 F. Supp. at 1031.. However, these changes do notchange the electorate that selects members of the citycouncil and, thus, do nothing to counteract the increasein the control of the white electorate brought about bythe consolidation.

Under these circumstances we are unable to conclude,as we must under the Voting Rights Act, that the consoli-dation and redrawing of residency district lines will nothave the effect of abridging the right to vote on accountof race or color. Accordingly, on behalf of the AttorneyGeneral, I must interpose an objection to the consolida-tion and the redistricting. We do not object to theincrease in size of the council.

Consistent with the decisions in Petersburg andRichmond cited above, the Attorney Genera w- reconsiderhisobjection to the consolidation should the City ofPort Arthur undertake to elect members of its city councilfrom fairly-drawn single-member districts. In addition,you have the right under the Procedures for the Admini-stration of Section 5, 28 C.F.R. 51.21(b), 51.23, and51.24, to request the Attorney General to reconsiderthis objection, and you have the right provided bySection 5 to seek a declaratory judgment from the UnitedStates District Court for the District of Columbia thatthe consolidation has neither the purpose nor the effectof denying or abridging the right to vote on account ofrace, color, or membership in a language minority group.However, until the objection has been withdrawn by theAttorney General or such a judgment rendered by theDistrict Court, the legal effect of the objection by theAttorney General is to render the consolidation legallyunenforceable insofar as it affects voting in the Cityof Port Arthur.


J

USA_00012668


4

Because of the pending litigation involving thismatter, Mosely V. Sadler, C.A. No. B-78-69-CA (E.D. Tex.),I am taking the libertyof sending copies of this letter,to the Court and to counsel for the plaintiff.

Sincerely,

John E. HuertaActing Assistant Attorney General


cc: lion. William M. StegerJudge, U.S. District Court for the

Eastern District of TexasBeaumont Division

David R. Richards, Esq.


USA_00012669


'vb

Air. Dennis D. ClarkCity Manager.City of Beeville100 West Corpus Christi StreetBeeville , Texas 78102

Dear Mr. Clark:

This is in reference to the adoption of thesingle-member district method of electing the CityCouncil of the City of 'Beeville, the designation offive single-,,ember districts for that purpose, andother electoral changes occasioned by the adoptionof the new electoral method, effected by OrdinanceNo. 1106 (1973) and by the approval of-PropositionOne by the electorate of the City of Beeville in theelection of April 3, 1973, submitted to the AttorneyGeneral pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting RightsAct, as amended. Your submission was completed onDecember 4, 1978.

Under Section 5 the submitting j urisdictionhas the burden of proving both that the change inquestion was not adopted with a discriminatorypurpose and that its effect will not be discrimina-tory. See Beer v. United States , 425 U . S. 130 ( 1976);Wilkes Count v. Unite d States , 450 F. Supp. 1171(D. .C. 1978), af f irmed, U.S.L . W. 3391 (Dec. 4,1978)(No . 78-70 ); Procedures for the Administrationof Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,28 C.F . R. 51.19.

Mexican Americans constitute approximately55 percent of the population of Beeville . The CityCouncil of Beeville has five members, who are electedto staggered two- year terms . Prior to the adoption


USA 00012670


2

of the changes in question, members of the councilwere elected at-large, and candidates favored by theMexican American electorate had frequently beenelected. The charter amendment providing for thesingle-member district system of electing councilmemmbers was adopted in what appears to have been areferendum polarized between Mexican American andAnglo voters, with predominantly Mexican Americanprecinct one voting against the proposition by asignificant margin and predominantly Anglo precincttwo voting in favor by an equally significant margin.Our analysis of the demographic data and maps youhave provided indicates that the effect of the adoptionof the single-member district plan may be to restrictthe influence of the Mexican American electorate inBeeville to districts one and two, although under theprior at-large system or under alternative single-member district plans Mexican Americans could potentiallyhave greater influence.

According to the statistics you have provided,there are significant differences in population amongthe five districts. The population of district one,the district with the smallest population, is onlyequal to 53.3 percent of the population of districtfive, the district with the greatest population. Wecannot determine that districts more equal in populationwould not have enhanced the electoral strength ofMexican Americans. Reservations with respect to thereliability of the statistics you have provided alsoprevent us from determining that the submitted plandoes not have a discriminatory effect , According tothe registered voter and voting age population statisticsfor the five wards that you have provided, 126,0 percentof the voting age population of district one are regis-tered to vote, while only 57,8 percent of the votingage population of district five are registered. Thesestatistics suggest that either the population or theregistration statistics you have provided are 'inaccurate,

Under these circumstances I am unable to concludeas I must under the Voting Rights Act, that the 'single-member district method of election established byOrdinance No. 1106 neither has a discriminatory purpose


USA 00012671


3

nor will have a discriminatory effect. Accordingly,on behalf of the Attorney General, I must interposean objection pursuant to Section 5 to the submittedmethod of election and other related electoral changes.

Of course, as provided by Section 5 of theVoting Rights Act, you have the right to seek adeclaratory-judgment from the United States DistrictCourt for the District of Columbia that the single-member district method of election established byOrdinance No. 1106 does not have the purpose and willnot have the effect of denying or abridging the rightto vote on account of race , color, or membership ina language minority group. In addition, the Proceduresfor the Administration of Section 5 (28 C,F.R. 51.21(b)and (c), 51.23, and 51.24) permit you to requestreconsideration of this objection by the AttorneyGeneral. However, until the judgment from the DistrictCourt is obtained or the objection withdrawn, the effectof the objection by the Attorney General is to make themethod of election established by Ordinance No. 1106legally unenforceable. As a result, the at-largesystem previously in effect remains the legal electoralsystem for the City of Beeville,

If you choose to ask the Attorney General toreconsider this objection, the following informationwould be helpful:

1. An explanation of the voter registration {rates that appear to exist for the five districts ofthe City of Beeville.

2. Elections returns by precinct or otherinformation that would show whether Mexican Americansand Anglos constitute separate voting blocs inBeeville.

3: information that will show why Beevilleadopted the single -member district method of electionover the a `- large system or other alternatives and why

the particular plan contained in Ordinance No, 1106-.;as adopted instead of alternatives , In particular,

Defendant 's Exhibit # -` "- - DE-00560

USA 00012672


- 4 -

we find in the materials you have provided referencesto meetings of Subcommittee No. 2 of the CharterRevision Commission on December 14 and 26, 1972, andto a meeting of the Commission on February 8, 1973,but minutes of these meetings were not provided. Inaddition, the minutes of the February 9, 1973, CityCouncil meeting indicate that Ordinance No. 1106 wasadopted unanimously, although we have been informedthat Messrs., Martinez and Munoz voted against theadoption of the ordinance. A clarification of thesematters would assist our reconsideration;

To enable this Department to meet its responsi-bility to enforce the•Voting Rights Act, please informus within twenty days of your receipt of this letterof the course of action the City of Beeville plans'toLake with respect to this matter. If you have anyquestions concerning this letter, please feel freeto call Voting Section Attorney David Hunter at202/633-3849.

Sincerely,

V t;fvj v )Drew S, Days III

Assistant Attorney GeneralCivil Rights Division

w

Llefendants Exhibit # _ _--r- _.. _ _ ___- _. . -_DE-00560Fi

USA 00012673


ttitri tatez_Pepartinent of httqticrWASI IINGTON, D.C. 20530

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

William T. Armstrong, Esq.Foster, Lewis, Langley,

Gardner & Banack1655 Frost Bank TowerSan Antonio, Texas 78205

1121 9

Dear Mr. Armstrong:

This is in reference to the redistricting of countycommissioner precincts, justice of the peace precincts andvoting precincts in Medina County, Texas, submitted to theAttorney General pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting RightsAct of 1965, as amended. Your submission was received onOctober 12, 1979.

We have given careful consideration to the informationyou have provided as well as to that available from Bureauof the Census data and from other interested parties. Ouranalysis reveals that the proposed change in the linedividing Commissioner Precincts 1 and 3 does little to changethe situation to which the Attorney General interposed anobjection on April 14,. 1978. A comparison of the 1979 planwith the 1978 plan reveals an increase in the minority popu-lation of 1.47 percent in proposed Precinct 3. When comparedwith the only legally enforceable plan (pre-1978), an increaseof 7.20 percent (49.68 to 56.88) is noted in Precinct 3,while Precinct 1 has been reduced by 12.26 percent from56.69 percent to 44.43 percent-in minority population.

As we indicated in our letter of April 14, 1978,Mexican Americans have been unable to achieve representa-tion on the County Commission with a population majorityof 56.69 percent in existing Commissioner Precinct 1.An increase of .19 percent as represented by the 56.88percent total minority population in Precinct 3 wouldhardly seem to change this situation. Although MexicanAmericans will have a population majority in Precinct 3,they likely will be unable to elect a candidate of theirchoice because of the fall-off in that percentage due toa smaller voting age population and a lower registrationrate among Mexican Americans, and because of the raciallypolarized voting pattern that seems to exist in MedinaCounty.


USA 00012674


I

- 2 -

In addition, ,as indicated in our letter of April 14,1978, it has been demonstrated that the minority populationof Medina County is concentrated in such a way as to makeit possible to develop a plan that would include a districtwhich would include a minority percentage of the populationat a level that would assure minority voters meaningfulaccess to the political process-. See, e.g.,-Mississippi v.United States , C.A. No. 78-1425 (D. D.C. June 1, 1979) andUnited Jewish Organizations v. ' Ca^ rey , 430 U.S. 144 (1977).Furthermore, we have beenpresented with no justificationfor the continued substantial fragmentation of the MexicanAmerican community in the City of Hondo.

.Under Section 5 the submitting authority has theburden of proving that the change in question is neitherretrogressive nor unconstitutional with respect to protectedminorities. Beer v.' -United States , 425 U.S. 130, 141-142(1976). Under the circumstances I must conclude that, forthe same reasons described in my letter of objection ofApril 14, 1978, Medina County has again failed to sustainits burden of proof. Therefore, on behalf of the AttorneyGeneral, I must object to the submitted reapportionmentplan.

With regard to the changes in the justice of the peaceprecincts and the voting precincts, no determination willbe made at this time pending resolution of the redistrictingissue since the realignments of the' justice of the peaceand voting precincts are dependent upon the change inCommissioner precinct lines.

Of course, as provided by Section 5 of the.VotingRights Act, you have the right to seek a declaratory judg-

ment from the Uni Led S La Lcs Dis Lric L Court for the District

of Columbia that this change has neither the purpose nor will

have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on

account of race, color, or membership in a language minority

group. In addition, the Procedures for the Administration of

Section 5 (28 C.F.R. '51.21 (b) and (c), 51.23, and 51.24)

permit you to request the Attorney General to reconsider

the objection. However, until the objection is withdrawn

or the judgment from the District of Columbia Court obtained,

the effect of the objection by the Attorney General is to

make the redistricting of the commissioner precincts legally

unenforceable.


USA 00012675


To enable this Department to meet its responsibility.to enforce the Voting Rights Act, please inform us withintwenty days of your receipt of this letter what course ofaction the County plans to take with respect to this mattea.If you have any questions concerning this letter, pleasefeel free to call Ms. Donna Clarke (202--724-7440) of ourstaff, who has been assigned to handle this submission.

DREW S. DAYS IIIAssistant Attorney General



USA 00012676


Mr. George H. SpencerClemens,, Spencer, Weliuaker &

Finck11305 National B,;;xL,% of Con:uncrcoBuilding

San Antonio, Texas 70205

Dear Mr. Spencer:

This is in response to your letter dated January 1G ,1980, in which you requested that the Attorney General recon-aider his December 7, 1979, objection to the redistricting ofCommissioner, Justice of the Peach and Constable Precincts byAtascosa County, Texas, in light' off' the decision in Garcia v.Uva]le County, 455 F. Supp. 101 (W. D. Tex. 1970), ofI cstubrsora. Un:i.ted States v. Uvalde , 439 U.S. 1059 (1979). Yourletterwas received on January 22, 1980.

In Garcia, the court found (p. 106) that the AttorneyCal had repeated his request for. information which thesubmitting authority had already stated to be unavailableand concluded that " [tIhc submission was, therefore , accordin:crto the regulations, complete." The circumstances surroundingthe submission from Atascosa County are distinguishable fromthose present in Uvalde County.

Our initial request for information of January 26, 1977,asked for the ^zunbcr or percent of black or Spanish-heritageresidents and votes of each of the precincts, for the results,by voting precinct, of all county elections held since January 1,1972, in which minority candidates have participated, and forthe names and business-hour telephone numbers of $pani h--heritage residents who were consulted regarding the redistrictingplan. No response was made to this request nor have Webeen advisccT tl^a...;^hc..setax^a,:^ctd information is unavailable.


USA 00012677


'i'o the contrary, •clho informatioa reque'sted dogs appear to beavailable to the submitting authority since voter lists OWcounty election results are maintained at county offices.Also the undatsd narrative, "Atascosa County-A tedistrictiiagPrope+al, " submitted by the county, contains a chart treatingdown the 1970 Census population figure for the county into thefour proposed couoissionor precincts and the: • narrativo OE themethodology employed to arrive at those Figures suggests thatthis process could have been followed to determine the pro-redistricting composition of each coi=issioznner precinct.

in addition to these items , as explanation wasrequested in our letter dated August 11, 1977, of a discre --pancy in the data initially subr.iittcd from that provided 11L

response to our request for additional information concerning

the population figures given for Precinct No. 2. This ex-plarna-tion was never received.

In light of the circumstances noted above, we do notbelieve this submission can be cod idered to have been completedas was the one in Uvalde County. Accordingly, the AttorneyGeneral is unable to withdraw his objection bared on thedecision in the cited case. However, as stated in our letterof objection, should the county elect to provide the requestedinformation the Attorney General will evaluate the nattor onits merits and determine whether there is a basis for Wit-drawllag the oVjection.

To enable th i ^ '^1 opt to moat its responsibilityto enforce the Voting Lights Act, please inform us v7ithintwenty days of your receipt of this letter of the courseof action Atascosa County plans to take with respect to thistllc^tt i. if you have any clucztions concerning this latter,please feel free-to call As. Elda Gordon (202---724-6675) ofour staff, who has been assigned to handle this submission.

Sincerely,

Drew S. Bays IIIAssistant Attorney General


Defendants Exhibit # i DE-005611

USA 00012678


C IvLI Rib h is 1 VISiWI1

Office of r lre .]ssislant Alttarney General ltlasI i ngtorj , D.C. 20530

Felix J. Stalls , 111, Esq.County AttorneyCochran County CourthouseRoom B-2Morton, Texas 79346

Dear Mr. Stalls -

FEW 1900

This is its reference to the redistricting ofthe commissioners' precincts and the creation ofadditional voting precincts and polling places inCochran County, Texas. Preliminary materials relatingto these changes were received by us initially onApril 16, 1976.

On June 7, 1976, we wrote to the then-CountyAttorney requesting the information with respect tothese voting changes which we believed to be necessaryto enable us to determine, as required by Section 5of the Voting Rights Act, whether the redistrictinghad the purpose or the effect of abridging the right tovote on account of race, color, or membership inalanguage minority group. Having received no responseand having learned that the addressee of our previousrequest was no longer in office, on August 21, 1977,we repeated that request to you. (Copies of our lettersare attached.) Your responding letter, received by uson December 21, 1977, provided some, but not all, of theinformation requested and we renewed our request for theunprovided information in,our letter of February 21, 1978.(Copy attached). To date we have not received theremainder of the requested information, specifically,answers to our inquiries concerning the number of registeredvoters, by race, in each commissioner and voting precinctbefore and u l,,=r the change.


USA 00012679


2

This information is e pecial.> y important in reviewing thissubmission because ,, ou 1-iave indicated that total populationstatistics , by race , for the commissioner and votingprecincts before and after the change are not available andyou were able to provide only percentage estimates. On theother hand , we aie aware from experience that the county,in order to conduct i ts elections , must maintain some recordof registered voters and the precincts in which they resideand it would not appc;ar Lo be a difficult task to i dent i fy theSpanish surnamed voters on the lists.

Under Section 5 of the voting Rights Act the submittingauthority has the burden of proving that a submitted changehas no discriminatory purpose or effect. See, e.g. , Georgiav. United States, 411 U.S. 526 (1973); 28 C.F.R. 51.19.in failing to provide the Attorney General with the informationnecessary for the proper evaluation of your submission, youhave failed to sustain your burden of proof. Therefore, onbehalf of the Attorney General, I must object to the submittedchanges.

Of course, as provided by Section 5 of the Voting RightsAct you have the right to seek a declaratory judgment from theUnited States District Court for the District of Columbia thatthese changes have neither the purpose nor will have the effectof denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race,color, or membership in a language minority group. In addition,the Procedures for the Administration of Section 5 (28 C.F.R.51.21(b), and (c), 51.23, and 51.24) permit you to request theAttorney General to reconsider the objection. Such a requestwould be particularly appropriate were the county to providethe information which was requested by the Attorney Generalbut never provided. However, until the objection is withdrawnor the judgment from the District of Columbia Court obtained,the effect of the objection by the Attorney General is to makethe redistricting of commissioner precincts and the creationof additional voting precincts and polling places legallyunenforceable.


USA_00012680


To enable th`L i Department to meet its responsibilityto enforce the Voting Rights Act, please inform us withintwenty days of your receipt of this letter what course ofaction Cochran County plans to take with respect to thismatter. if you have any questions concerning this letter,please feel free to call Ms. Hallue E. Wright (202----72!-7170) of our utaff, who has been assigned to handle thissubmission.

Sincerely,

Drew S. Days IIIAssistant Attorney General



USA 00012681


J. C. Reagan, Esq.Bartram, Reagan,

Burrus & DierksenPost Office Box 69205 North Seguin AvenueNew Braunfels, Texas 73130

Dear Mr. Reagan :

1 FEB 1980

This is iz. reference to the redistricting of conmiissionerprecincts and the change in the boundaries of Voting Precincts10 and 14 in Comal County, Texas, submitted to the AttorneyGeneral pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,as amended. Your submission was received on may 7, 1979. onJuly 6, 1979, we sent a letter requesting additional informationnecessary to complete our review of this submission. AA copy ofthat letter is attached.

Our records indicate that, to date, we have received noresponse to our request. We have obtained answers to some ofour questions from other sources; however, we still need thefollowing previously requested information to evaluate properlythe changes in question:

1. Maps of the county and of the City of New Braunfels'showing the existing boundaries and boundaries after the changewith areas of minority population concentrations so indicated;it would be most helpful to have these areas of concentrationshown as portions of census enumeration districts if possible.

2. Reasons for selecting the plan that was adopted.(We understand that the Mexican American Legal Defense andEducation Fund (MA,LDEF) submitted two other plans for yourconsideration.)


USA 00012682


I

^. A description of any verifi..catinn of the accuracyof the methodology of determining the po_lulation and racialcomposition of split anu eration districts.

4. Arty stir%ates that have bean made of the change inthe total population or racial or language Trti ority groupcomposition of the county since the 1570 Census.

5. The number of rogistared voters by raco or laravageminority group for each voting precinct in the county. Ifexact statistics are not available, pleaso provide your beatestimates and tho basis for those esstirsatea.

6. Primary and general election results, by precinct,of all contests in which a Mexican American has oonqmtad forthe position of County Commissioner, Justice of the Peace,Constable, Sheriff, t`fuc Asaessror/Collector, or school Trusteeor for any other county office since 'November 1, 1972. tounderstand that there was a Mexican roricar& candidate forconstable in 1976 and that thorn is some discrepancy int1w election results. T13erefore, please provide both unofficialnewspaper tallies and official results, by precinct, for thiselootion.

Udder section 5 of the Voting Rights Act the [submittingauthority has the burden of proving that a submitted changehas no diacriminatory purpose or affect . See, e . q. Georcia v.united states , 411 U. S . 526 (1973) ; 26 C.r. R. 51; .9.^Infaili3r&4 to ?rovido the Attorney General with the informationnecessary for the proper evaluation of your submission, youhave failed to sustain your burden of proof . Therefore, onbehalf of the Attorney General , I must object to the submittedchanges.

Of course , as provided by Section 5 of the Voting RightsAct you have the right to seek a declaratory Judgment from theunited States District Court for the District of Columbia thattLos changes have neither the purpose nor will have the effectof denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race4pcolor or erahip in a language minority group. In addition,`the Procedures for the Administration of Section 5 (28 C.F.R.51.21(b) and (a), 51.23 , and 51.24) permit you to request theAttorney General to reconsider the obj ection and, in thisinstance , we will reconsider the matter upon receipt of theadditional information we previously requested . iorover,


USA_00012683


3

until trio objection is withdrawn or the judgment from theDistrict of Columbia Court obtained, the effect of theobjection by the Attorney General is to make the redistrictingof commissioner precincts and the changes in Voting PrecinctslC a4d 14 of Coral County, Texan , legally unenforceable.

To enable this Depart ont to meet its responsibility toenforce the Voting, Rights Act, please iniorn us within twentydays of your receipt of this letter what course of actionCoral county plans to take with respect to this matter. Ifyou have any questions concerning this letter, please feelfree to call .,Ls. T)onna Clarke (202--724-7440) of our staff,who has been assigned to handle this submission.

Sincerely,

DREW S. DAYS IIIAs33istarjt Attorney General


iDefendant 's Exhibit # DE-005617

USA 00012684


,lu;r,^•,,,1r, U.%. _'US_u

WvW. Gary, Esq.Gary, Thomasson, Hall & Marks817 N. CarancahuaPost Office Box 371Corpus Christi, Texas 78403

Dear Mr. Gary:

A - R 1 6 3EJ

This is in reference to the nine polling place changesand apportionment plan providing for election of four membersfrom single-member districts and three members at-large fromresidency districts, with staggered terms , for the CorpusChristi Independent School District in Nueces County , Texas,submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to Section 5 of theVoting Rights Act of 1965, as amended . Your submission wascompleted on February 25, 1980.

The At torney General does not interpose any objectionsto the nine polling place changes . However, we feel a respon-sibility to point out that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Actexpressly provides that the failure of the Attorney General toobject does not bar any subsequent judicial action to enjoin theenforcement of such changes.

With respect to the apportionment plan, we have givencareful consideration to the materials you have submitted,as well as information and comments from other interestedParties. We have noted particularly the history of purpose-ful racial discrimination by and within the district, anapparent pattern of racial bloc-voting in district elections,and the use of racial campaign tactics in some district elec-tions. We note that the submitted plan provides for only onedistrict in which Mexican--American voters will have a realisticopportunity to elect a representative of their choice, in aschool district which is over forty percent Mexican Americanin population. We note also that Mexican American voters likelywould have a viable majority in a second district but for theover-population of proposed District 1. we note further that

ti,e provision for residency districts has the same effect ofreverting single-shot. voting for the at-large seats as the

numbered post provision struck down in LULr?C v. Williams ,

C.A. No. 74-C-95 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 2, 1979).


USA 00012685


- 2 -

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act the submitting,.,sty has the burden o f nrcving that a submitted chance ras

o iscriminatory purpose or effect. See, e .c. ,Geoorrcia v.States, 411 U. S. 526 28 C.F.R. Y1.19.ilnlt ^ (1973); in the

particul text of the Corpus Christi independent SchoolD?StrZCt, the standard of review is governed by the St3T:dardexpressed in Kirtsey v. Board o f S upe rvi s or s o f B ind s Count',M ississipD i, 554 F.2d 139, 143 (5th Cir. 1977) (en banc )

The court must -then look to the matterof whether the redistricting plan, whetheradopted by legislative processes or proposedto be adopted and ordered by the court, willcontinue in effect an existent denial ofaccess to the minority. Both the SupremeCourt and this circuit have firmly held thatwhere a reapportionment plan is formulatedin the context of an existent intentionaldenial of access by minority group membersto the political process, and would perpetuateghat, denial, the plan is constitutionallyunacceptable because it is a denial of rightsguaranteed under the Fourteenth and FifteenthAmendments.

In light of the considerations discussed above , I cannot-conclude , as I must under the Voting Rights Act , that yourburden of proof has been sustained in this instance . There-fore, on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to thesubmitted apportionment plan.

Of cou r se, as provided by Section 5 of the Voting RightsAct, you have the right to seek a declaratory j udgment from theUnited States District Court for the District of Columbia that

this change has i , 2ither the purpose nor will have the effect of

denying or abridging the right to vote on account o f race , color,

or membership in a language minority group . In addition, the

Procedures for the Administration of Section 5 (28 C.F.R. 51.21(b)

and (c ), 51.23, and 51.24) permit you to request the Attorney

General to reconsider the objection. However , until the objec-

tion is withdrawn or the j udgment from the District of Columbia

Court obtained, the effect of the objection by the Attorney

General i s to make the submitted electoral system legally

unenforceable.

Defendant 's Exhibit # ;ATE-005619

USA_00012686


-

The objection here interposed may be readily remedied,as the foregoing discussion of our rationale suggests. Ifthe residency districts for the at-large seats and the over-tcpulation of District 1 were eliminated in a fairly drawn 4:3elan, or if an alternative plan were devised which providedfor fair political access for both black and Hispanic minorities,our concerns would be alleviated.

To enable this Department to meet its responsibility toenforce the Voting Rights Act, please inform us within twentydays of your receipt of this letter of the course of actionthe Corpus Christi Independent School District plans to takewith respect to this matter. If you have any questions concerningthis letter, please feel free to call Ms. Zaida Friedman (202--724-7187) of our staff, who has been assigned to handle thissubmission.

Drew S. Days IIIAssistant Attorney General



USA 00012687


12 UG G O

honorable T. L. arvilleJim Wells County Judge200 North Almon? StreetRice, Texas 78332

Dear Judge harville

This is in reference to the February,' 1980, redis-tricting plan for Jim Wells County, Texas, submitted to theAttorney General pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting RightsAct of 1965, as amended. Your submission was completed onJune 13, 1960.

We have analyzed carefully the materials contained inyour submission, data obtained from the Bureau of the Censusand comments from ether interested persons. Our analysisreveals that while the proposed plan adequately deals withsome of the concerns we had in the previously submitted plan,the plan continues to dilute the voting strength of theminority concentration that exists in the southern portionof the City of dice by distributing those voters among allfour commissioner precincts. On the other hand, it appearsthat a number of plans were available to the CommissionersCourt that would not have had that effect. The adoption ofa plan that would maintain Mexican-American voting strengthat a minimum level, where alternative options would providea fairer chance for minority representation, is relevant tothe question of an impermissible racial purpose in itsadoption (see kilkes County v. United States , 450 F. Supp.1171 (D.D.C. 1978), aff°d 439 U.5. 999: see also, 28 C.F.R.51.19)), particularly where, as here, the plan was drawnwith no significant input from the affected minority group.


USA_00012688


- 2

Under. Section 5 of the Votin g Rights Ac t the submittingauthority has the burden of proving that a submitted changehas no discriminatory purpose or effect. See , e .g. , Georgia v.United States , 411 U . S. 526 (1973) ; 28 C.F . R. 51.19. In lightof the considc ations discussed above, _ cannot conclude, asI must under the Voting Rights Act, that that burden has beensustained in this instance. Therefore , on behalf of theAttorney General , I most object to the submitted change.

Of course, as provided by Section 5 of the Voting RightsAct, you have the right to seek a declaratory judgment from theDnited States District Court for the District of Columbia thatthis change neither has the purpose nor will have the effect ofdenying or abridging the right to vote on account of race , color,or membership in a language minority group. In addition, theProcedures for the Administration of Section 5 (28 C.F.R. 51.21Mand (c), 51.23, and 51.24) permit you to request the AttorneyGeneral to reconsider the objection. However, until the objec-tion is withdrawn or the judgment from the District of ColumbiaCourt obtained, the effect of the objection by the AttorneyGeneral is to make the redistricting plan for Jim Wells County,Texas, legally unenforceable.

To enable this Department to meet its responsibility toenforce the Voting Rights Act, please inform us within twenty

days of your receipt of this letter of the course of action

the Jim Wells County Commi ssioners Court plans to take with

respect to this matter. If you have any questions concerningthis letter, please feel free to call Ms. Elda Gordon (202--724-7403) of our staff, who has been assigned to handle thissubmission.

Sincerely,

JAMES P. TURNERActing Assistant Attorney General



USA_00012689


U.S. Department c sttice


Office of the Assistant Atturney General Washington , !).C. 40530

22 JAN 1982

Jeffrey A. Davis, Esq.Reynolds , Allen, Cook,

Pannill & Hooper1100 Milam Building , 16th FloorHouston, Texas 77002

Dear Mr. Davis:

This is in reference to the redistricting of thecommissioners precincts of Uvalde County , Texas , submittedto the Attorney General pursuant to Section 5 of the VotingRights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973c. Yoursubmission was received initially on October 29, 1981, and wascompleted by a corrective supplement on November 23, 1981.

We have made a careful analysis of the informationthat you have provided , the events surrounding the enactmentof the change , the information in our files with respect toprior plans and elections in Uvalde County, and comments andinformation provided by other interested parties. On thebasis of that analysis , we are unable to conclude that thenew plan for the redistricting of commissisoners precinctsdoes not have a discriminatory purpose or effect.

Our review of this matter shows that Uvalde County,like other Texas counties , is divided into four commissionersprecincts , which are required , under the Fourteenth Amendment,to be equalized in population following decennial censuses.According to the 1980 census, the population of Uvalde Countyis 22,441 , of whom Mexican-Americans constitute 55.5 percent.Because the plan previously in use had been held in violationof the one-person , one-vote requirement of the FourteenthAmendment (Mata v. White , C.A . No. DR - 79-CA-27 (W.D. Tex.Feb. 7 , 1980TTthe county, in 1981, adopted a new plan,which provides districts of relatively equal population.


I

USA_00012690


2

Our analysis of the submitted plan indicates thatits likely effect will be to dilute the voting, strenazth ofMexican-American residents of Tivalde County . Our researchindicates that polarized votin g between Anglos and *Iexican-Americans exists . Under the proposed elan Mexican-Americanvoters will be able to elect a candidate of their choiceto the commissioners ' court in only ore district , aithouphMexican -Americans now constitute a maiority of the county'spopulation. It wotild appear. also , that the plan unnecessarilyfrawrents the Nexirar.-American community by nlacinp an overlylarge number of Hispanics into Precinct 2 and dividing theremainder between Precincts 1.. s"e 4, vrith the result thatMexican-American voters will not have a e uhstantiral . influerceon the election of commissioners it but one nrecinrt. More-over, our research further indicates that A plan whichcreates districts as enual in nonttlation as the adonteriplan , and creates two districts in which Mexican-Americanawould have a reasonable opportunity to elect candidatesoftheir choice , could have been drawn without difficulty.

Cider those circumstances we ere arable to conclrtde,as we must under the voting rights Act, that the submitted plandoes not have the purpose and will not have the effect ofabridping the right to vote on account of membership in alanguage minority gzroutp. fi ef Beer v. United " tates, 425U.S. 130 . 141 (1976 ); Wilkes Count V. Thi to ..Mates, 450F, supra . 1165 , 1177-75 n.n .r.. 1978), affirmed ,5, 999( 1978 ) ; Georgia v . United States, 411. U.S. 53R (1973).Accordingly, on behalf of the Attorney Canerel , I must inter-pose an objection to the redistricting plan.

Of course , as provided by Section 5 of the v1otin±a

PiRhts Act, you have the right to seek a declaratory iud-ment from the United fitstes district (; ours= for the niptrictof Columbia that this change neither has the p rrpose norwill. brave the effect of denying or al ridging the ris*.bt tovote on account of race, color, or membership in a 1ar.Ruareminority r.roun . In addition . the Procedures for the Adminis

tration of Section 5 (Section 51.44 , 46 Fed. Fep.,. 7P)permit you to reeuest the Attorney General. to reconsiderthe ohieetion . However, until the ohlection is withdrawn

or the J udgment from the pietr.ict of Columbia court isobtained, the effect of the objection of the AttorneyCentral is to make the 19Fl1 plan legally tnenfor_ceshlo.


USA 00012691


3

Because of the pending litigation concerning thedistricting of the commissioners precincts of Uvalde County,Mata v. White, supra, I am taking the liberty of providinga copy oft its letter to the court and to counsel. for theplaintiffs.

rrT ford ReynoAssistant Attorney General


cc: Dorwin W. SuttleUnited States District Judge

Jose Garza, Esq.

Jerry WhiteUvalde County Judge


USA 00012692


U.S. Depertine g - justke


Offiet of tht A t Wwr Attwtwy Genes! MWAftro+r . O.C. 20530

1QFEB

A..,1.41-1

Jeffrey A . Davis, Esq.Reynolds , Allen, Cook,

Pannill & Hooper1100 Milan Building , 16th FloorHouston , Texas 77002

Dear Mr . Davis:

This is in reference to the redistricting of thecommissioners precincts of Uvalde County , Texas, sub-mitted to the Attorney General pursuant to Section 5of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended , 42 U.S.C.1973c . Your submission was received on February 4, 1982.As pointed out in your submission , the fact that there ispending litigation, a hold over of incumbent commissionersand the need to prepare for the May 1 , 1982 election, allrequire an expedited review of this submission. Theanalysis which follows is therefore based on the factspresently available to us . We are prepared , of course,to consider any supplemental information you may wish toprovide.

We have made a careful analysis of the informationthat you have provided , the events surrounding theenactment of the change , the information in our fileswith respect to prior plans and elections in Uvalde County,and comments and information provided by other interestedparties . On the basis of that analysis , we are unable toconclude that the new plan for the redistricting ofcommissioners precincts does not have a discriminatorypurpose or effect.

Our review of this matter shows that Uvalde County,like other Texas counties , is divided into four commissionersprecincts which are required , under the Fourteenth Amendment,to be equalized in population following decennial censuses.According to the 1980 census , the population of Uvalde Countyis 22,441 , of whom Mexican-Americans constitute 55.5 percent.Because the plan previously in use had been held in violationof the one-person , one-vote requirement of the FourteenthAmendment (Mate v. White , C.A. No. DR - 79-CA- 27 (W.D. Tex.Feb. 7, 1980rthe county , in 1981 , adopted a new plan, whichprovided for districts of relatively equal population. The1981 plan was submitted for preclearance pursuant to Section 5of the Voting Rights Act and on January 22, 1982 , a timelyobjection was interposed.


USA_00012693


2

As with the previous plans , our analysis of thecurrent plan under submission indicates that its in-evitable effect will be to dilute the voting strength ofMexican -American residents of Uvalde County , Tor tn-a t- a- cefour review shows that this plan , as did the 1981 plan, un-necessarily fragments the Mexican-American community byplacin g a large number of Mexican -Americans in Precinct 2,while dividing the remaining Mexican -American concentrationin the City of Uvalde between Precincts 1 and 4. The planaccomplishes this result through the use of a strange hour-glass configuration for which the county has presented noexplanation reflecting a legitimate state interest.

This fragmentation has the effect of minimizing thepotential voting strength of the Mexican -American citizensof Uvalde County . Under the proposed plan Mexican-Americansstand a clear chance of electing a candidate of their choiceto the commissioners court in only one precinct , althoughthey constitute a majority of the county ' s population. Inthis regard, while we note the county ' s representation thatproposed Precinct 4 is 65% Mexican-American , our analysisof the census data indicates that the percentage is wellbelow that figure . We are particularly concerned about thisdiscrepancy because applying the stated percentages accompanyingyour latest submission to the percent populations providedresult in between 500 to 600 more Mexican -Americans in thecounty than established by the census count . Without aclarification of these inconsistencies , we are unable topreclear the current submission. As stated in the January 22,1982 , letter of objection , our research indicates thata logically formulated plan, including districts whichmeet one-person , one-vote standards'. and. two districts inwhich Mexican-Americans would have a reasonable opportunityto elect candidates of their choice , can be drawn withoutdifficulty.

Under these circumstances we are unable to concludeas we must under the Voting Rights Act, that the submittedplan does not have the purpose and will not have the effectof abridging the right to vote on account of membership in

a language minority group . See Beer v. United States,425 U.S . 130, 141 ( 1976 ); Wilkes Count v. Hite tates,450 F . Sup . 1168, 1117-78 8), affirmedU.S. 999 (.978); Geor is v. United States , 411 U.S. 538(1973 ). Accordingly -on beha o t e Attorney General, Imust interpose an objection to the redistricting plan.


USA 00012694


r

3

Of course , p rovi ded by Section 5 of the VottnoOfti ^.vr v r

Rights Act , you have the right to seek a declaratory ^'judgment from the United States District Court for theDistrict of Columbia that this change neither has thepurpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridgingthe right to vote on account of race , color , or membershipin a language minority group . In addition , the Proceduresfor the Administration of Section 5 (Section 51.44, 46Fed. Reg . 878) permit you to request the Attorney Generalto reconsider the objection . However , until the objectionis withdrawn or the judgment from the District of Columbiacourt is obtained , the effect of the objection of theAttorney General is to make the 1981 plan legally unenforce-able.

Because of the pending litigation concerning thedistricting of the commissioners precincts of Uvalde County,Mata v. White , supra , I an taking the liberty of providingcaopy oftis ater to the court and to counsel for theplaintiffs.

wcadford a dsAssistant Attorney General


cc: Fred ShannonUnited States District Judge

Jose Garsa, Esq.

Jerry WhiteUvalde County Judge


USA 00012695


U.S. Department of Justice


Office of the Anistant Attorney General h iiwigroon , D.C. LViiu

November 18, 1985

Honorable J. F. BrandonLynn County JudgeP. 0. Box 1256Tahoka, Texas 79373

Dear Judge Brandon:

This refers to the redistricting of justice of thepeace and constable precincts and the reduction in thenumber of justices of the peace and constables from fiveto two in Lynn County, Texas, submitted to the AttorneyGeneral pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973c. We received your responseto our request for additional information on September 18,1985.

We have considered carefully the materials you haveprovided, as well as information and comments from otherinterested parties. At the outset, we note that thecurrent plan provides for one district in which minoritygroup members comprise a 57 percent majority, and thatthe minority population of Lynn County is situated insuch a way that a variety of fairly drawn plans wouldallow the retention or enhancement of that majority.However, when the proposed plan is analyzed with 1980Census data, the highest combined minority percentage inany district is 51 percent, and both districts have clearwhite voting age majorities. These facts indicate at leastinitially that the proposed districting plan would have aretrogressive effect on minority voting strength.

In order to examine further the purpose and effect ofthe proposed changes, we requested specific additional infor-mation, including election returns for all contests withinthe county which have involved minority candidates, current


USA_00012696


2

voter registration data, and maps showing the location of thecounty's minority population concentrations so that we couldjudge their treatment by the proposed districting . To date,much of this information which would enable us to reach areasoned decision has not been furnished and some of thatwhich has been supplied is not consistent with other informa-tion available to us . For example , the population statisticsyou have provided for the existing districts are, withoutexplanation , significantly different from the statisticsprovided in connection with our earlier review of thosedistricts when they were adopted in 1982. Thus , while thedata used in the plan submitted show whites as constitutingonly 40 percent of the county's population , the earliersubmitted statistics , as well as Census data , show thatwhites constitute over 58 percent of the county ' s population,a difference that is not satisfactorily accounted for orexplained in the submitted plan.

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the submittingauthority has the burden of showing that a submitted changehas no discriminatory purpose or effect . See Georg ia v.United States , 411 U.S. 526 (1973 ); see also t he eduresfor the Administration of Section 5 (28 C.F.R . 51.39(e)).Based on the circumstances discussed above, and in lightof evidence of racial bloc voting in local elections andthe absence of evidence of an effective opportunity forminority participation in designing the districting plan,we are unable to conclude that the county ' s burden hasbeen met in this instance. Accordingly , I must, onbehalf of the Attorney General , interpose an objection tothe proposed districting plan.

With regard to the reduction in the number of justicesof the peace and constables , this change does not appear onits face to be objectionable . However, it would beinappropriate to preclear such a change in the absence ofa nondiscriminatory districting system for its implementa-tion and, for that reason, an objection also is beinginterposed to that change pending the county's adoptionof a districting plan that meets Section 5 requirements.


USA 00012697


3

Of course, as provided by Section 5 of the VotingRights Act, you have the right to seek a declaratoryiudzment from the United States District Court for theDistrict of Columbia that these changes have neither thepurpose nor WLL h ave

LaVe tu

Lt e ffec t o f

d.. ce , +. +yin nr abridgi ng'5 ..^ CD_ 110

the right to vote on account of race, color, or member shipin a language minority group. In addition, Section 51.44of the guidelines permits you to request that the AttorneyGeneral reconsider the objections. However, until theobjections are withdrawn or a judgment from the District ofColumbia Court is obtained, the effect of the objections bythe Attorney General is to make the redistricting and reduc-tion legally unenforceable. 28 C.F.R. 51.9.

To enable this Department to meet its responsibilityto enforce the Voting Rights Act, please inform us ofthe course of action Lynn County plans to take with respectto this matter. If you have any questions, feel free to callJohn K. Tanner (202-724-8388), Attorney/Reviewer of theSection 5 Unit of the Voting Section.

Wm. Bradford Reyn'o1 dsAssistant Attorney General



USA_00012698



Office of the Aairtanr Attorney General


Wathin=ton, D.C. 20530

September 26, 1988

Ann Clarke Snell, Esq.Bickerstaff , Heath & SmileySan Jacinto Center, Suite 180098 San Jacinto BoulevardAustin , Texas 78701-4039

Dear Ms. Snell:

This refers to the reduction in the number of justice of thepeace and constable precincts from five to one in Lynn County,Texas, submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to Section 5 ofthe Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended , 42 U.S.C. 1973c. Wereceived the information to complete your submission on July 26,1988.

We have considered carefully the information you haveprovided, as well as information from other interested parties andfrom the Section 5 submissions of prior redistricting plans in 1982and 1985 for justice of the peace ("JP") precincts in Lynn County.As you know, on November 18, 1985, the Attorney General interposedan objection to the county' s proposal to reduce the number of JPprecincts from five to two and the associated redistricting plan.In that letter, we noted what appeared to be a pattern of raciallypolarized voting in local elections and, in that context, thechanges appeared to have a retrogressive effect on the opportunityof minority citizens to participate in the political process. Wealso noted that much of the information we had requested to enableus to reach a more informed decision had not been furnished and thatsome of that which had been provided was inconsistent with otherinformation available to us . Finally, we shared with you ourobservation that the reduction in the number of JP precincts did notappear on its face to be objectionable, but that an objection wasnecessary in the context of the implementing districting plan whichwas retrogressive to minority voting strength in the county.


USA_00012699


- 2 -

The county now proposes to adopt a single, countywide JPprecinct. In so doing, the county has not sought to provide any ofthe information which we explained was lacking in the priorsubmission nor has the county clarified any of the inconsistencieswhich handicapped our prior review. However, on the basis of theinformation available to us it appears that the new plan will notonly continue but increase the retrogression which led to the 1985objection. Also, we find particularly relevant the fact that, aswith the 1985 plan, minority citizens were not allowed theopportunity to participate in the process leading to the adoption ofthe present proposal.

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the submittingauthority has the burden of showing that a submitted change has nodiscriminatory purpose or effect. See Georgia v. United--States , 411U.S. 526 (1973); see also the Procedures for the Administration ofSection 5 (20 C.F.R. 51.52). In light of the considerationsdiscussed above, I cannot conclude, as I must under the VotingRights Act, that that burden has been sustained in this instance.Therefore, on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to the.proposed reduction in the number of justice of the peace andconstable precincts from five to one.

In interposing this objection we wish to reiterate that areduction in the number of JP precincts, if implemented by a fairlydrawn, nondiscriminatory districting plan, should encounter nodifficulty satisfying Section 5 preclearance standards. In thatregard, we note that the state constitution (art. 5, sec. 18)continues to provide Lynn County the authority "from time to time,for the convenience of the people, . . . [to] divide[ the county]into not more than four precincts."

Of course, as provided by Section 5 of the Voting RightsAct, you have the right to seek a declaratory judgment from theUnited States District Court for the District of Columbia that theinstant changes have neither the purpose nor will have the effect ofdenying or abridging the right to vote on account of race , color, ormembership in a language minority group. In addition, Section 51.45of the guidelines permits you to request that the Attorney Generalreconsider the objection. However, until the objection is withdrawnor a judgment from the District of Columbia Court is obtained, theeffect of the objection by the Attorney General is to make theproposed reduction legally unenforceable. 28 C.F .R. 51.10.


USA 00012700


- 3 -

To enable this Department to meet its responsibility tot. :`-+-, i\g R ghtc Ac - p e se i nfcr w u cf the course =fGl^V1A.rG - {\1 L\1 yea b ra , ./;yµyy i.i Vi ^. V..

action the county plans to take with respect to this matter. If youhave any questions, feel free to call Mark A. Posner ( 202-724-8388),an attorney in the Voting Section.

Sincerely,

James P . TurnerActing Assistant Attorney General



USA 00012701




Office of the Assistan( Attornev Genera ! Washington . D.C 205 30

Dr. William J. CampionPresident, Trinity Valley Community

College District500 South Prairieville StreetAthens, Texas 75751

Dear Dr. Campion:

fl r^Y '1 F.^^wy .^

This refers to the February 3, 1986, redistrictingplan, the appointment of a board member to fill a vacancy inDistrict 4, and a decrease in the length of the terms of twoboard members for the Trinity Valley Community College District(formerly known as the Henderson County Junior College District)in Anderson , Henderson , Hunt, Kaufman , and Van Zandt Counties,Texas, submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to Section 5of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 , as amended , 42 U.S . C. 1973c.We received the information to complete your submission onAugust 12, 1986.

We have considered carefully the information you haveprovided as well as information received from other interestedparties. At the outset, we note that according to the 1980Census the proposed redistricting plan is significantly rnalap-portioned, with a top-to-bottom deviation of approximately49 percent. The district with the largest minority population(District 6, 43% black) is overpopulated by approximately 31percent. We understand that this malapportionment resultedfrom using registration (rather than population) data as thebasis for the apportionment; however, it is now well establishedthat registration data may validly be used only where itproduces a plan "not substantially different from that-whichwould have resulted from the use of a permissible populationbasis." Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73, 93 (1966). Ofparticular relevance to our review is the observation that,had the college district prepared a properly apportioned plan-otherwise using its stated criteria, District 6 would havebeen majority black rather than minority black as consti-tuted in the proposed plan. This consequence is highlysignificant given the racially polarized voting which existsin the Terrell area, where District 6 is located.

Defendant's Exhibit # D E-005635

1

USA 00012702


-2-

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the submittingauthority has the burden of showing that a submitted changehas neither a discriminatory purpose nor a discriminatoryeffect. See Georgia v. United States, 411 U.S. 526 (1973);

1 L ^`

^ L L V l^ 5see also th e P rocedures for t e Admi L J 1.1traVration l/ if 17 t i on 5`

(28 C.F.R. 51.39(e)). In light of the considerations discussedabove and other relevant circumstances, including thosesurrounding the process that led to the adoption of the plan,I cannot conclude, as I must under the Voting Rights Act,that the college district has carried its burden in thisinstance of showing the absence of a discriminatory purpose.Therefore, on behalf of the Attorney General, I must objectto the redistricting plan submitted by the Trinity Valley'Community College District.

Of course, as provided by Section 5 of the VotingRights Act, you have the right to seek a declaratoryjudgment from the United States District Court for theDistrict of Columbia that this change has neither the purposenor will have the effect of denying or abridging theright to vote on account of race, color, or membership in.a language minority group. In addition, Section 51.44 ofthe guidelines permits you to request that the AttorneyGeneral reconsider the objection. However, until theobjection is withdrawn or a judgment from the District ofColumbia Court is obtained, the effect of the objection bythe Attorney General is to make the redistricting plan legallyunenforceable. 28 C.F.K. 51.9.

In view of the foregoing objection, it would not beappropriate to reach a determination on the two related

changes submitted with the redistricting plan. 28 C.F.R.

51.20(b).

To enable this Department to meet its responsibilityto enforce the Voting Rights Act, please inform us of thecourse of action the Trinity Valley Community College Districtplans to take with respect to this matter. If you have anyquestions, feel free to call Mark A. Posner (202-724-8388),Attorney/Reviewer in the Section 5 Unit of the Voting Section.

Sincerely,

Wm. Bradford ReynoldsAssistant Attorney General



J

USA 00012703


US. Dot ofjustke


Office of the Attfstgt Attorney GenenJ Werhinsto, , D.C. 20530

April 18, 1988

David Ryan, Esq.Henslee , Ryan & Grace3432 Greystone DriveSuite 200Austin, Texas 78731

Dear Mr. Ryan:

This refers to the change in method of election from atlarge to four single-member districts and three at-largepositions (without numbered positions ), the districting plan, amajority vote requirement for trustees elected from districts,the implementation schedule , candidate qualifications , and theconsolidation of seven polling places for the MarshallIndependent School District in Harrison County , Texas, submittedto the Attorney General pursuant to Section 5 of the votingRights Act of 1965, as amended , 42 U.S . C. 1973c . We received theinformation to complete your submission on March 29, 1988.

We have considered carefully the information you provided,as well as information from other interested parties and from the1980 Census. Our analysis of the 1980 Census data indicates thatthe minority population figures for the proposed districtsprovided in your submission mistakenly include a double-count ofHispanic residents . In addition , the.figures furnished for eachof the districts show that the black population totals includeHispanics and others , even though there is no indication thatthese other minority residents ally themselves with blacks inschool board elections . Thus, it would appear that, from thestandpoint of the black non-Hispanic population , the proposedplan contains but a single majority black district , and that oneat only 54 . 9 percent black . This contrasts significantly withthe 57 percent and 55.7 percent "minority" populations for twodistricts as set forth in the information provided with thesubmission.

In this regard , we find it particularly noteworthy that theblack community apparently has been seeking for many years tohave the school district adopt single-member districts. Itappears that the school district resisted these efforts while, atthe same time, blacks consistently were defeated in contestedschool board elections . In fact , during the course of theseevents the Attorney General found it necessary in 1976 tointerpose an objection to the school board ' s effort to impose a


USA 00012704


- 2 -

majority vote requirement which had the potential for making iteven more difficult for blacks to elect candidates of theirchoice . Racially polarized voting appears to characterize schoolboard elections in the Marshall Independent school nistrict andthe school district so stipulated during the course of this

i Unda such circuastances , then , a serious questionis raised as to whether the submitted plan affords the blackconstituency an equal opportunity to participate in the electoralprocess and to elect candidates of their choice to office.

With respect to the consolidation of polling places, asimilar concern is raised since it appears that such aconsolidation would make it more difficult for many black votersto participate in school board elections . While we recognizethat there is a valid interest in eliminating election dayproblems engendered by the school district and the city holdingelections on the same day at different polling locations, itappears that the school district had available to it alternativeswhich would have been not nearly so restrictive on polling placeaccessibility as the one adopted . That choice is particularlytroubling when it is noted that the consolidation does notresolve the problem of voters having to vote at more than onepolling place on election day and that no input on this importantmatter was sought from the minority community.

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the submittingauthority has the burden of showing that a submitted change hasno discriminatory purpose or effect . See Georgia v. UnitedStates , 411 U . S. 526 ( 1973 ); see also the Procedures for theAdministration of Section 5 (28 C . F.R. 51.39 ( e)). In light ofthe considerations discussed above , I cannot conclude , as I mustunder the Voting Rights Act , that that burden has been sustainedin this instance . Therefore , on behalf of the Attorney General,

I must object to the change in the method of election asimplemented by the instant districting plan, and to the polling

place consolidation.

Of course , as provided by Section 5 of the Voting RightsAct, you have the right to seek a declaratory judgment from theUnited States District Court for the District of Columbia thatthese changes have neither the purpose nor will have the effect

of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race,color , or membership in a language minority group . In addition,Section 51 . 45 of the guidelines permits you to request that theAttorney General reconsider the objection . However , until theobjection is withdrawn or a judgment from the District ofColumbia court is obtained , the effect of the objection by the.

Attorney General is to make the change in method of election as

implemented by the submitted districting plan and the consoli-

dation of polling places legally unenforceable . 28 C.F . R. 51.10.


USA 00012705


- 3 -

With regard to the candidate qualifications and theimplementation schedule , we are unable to make a determination atthis time since these changes are dependent upon the changes toWhich all Object ion is being in.GA-posed .

To enable this Department to meet its responsibility toenforce the Voting Rights Act, please inform us of the course ofaction Marshall Independent School District plans to take withrespect to this matter . If you have any questions , feel free tocall Mark A. Posner ( 202-724 -8388 ), Deputy Director of theSection 5 Unit of the Voting Section.

Sincerely,




USA 00012706



'ivil Rights Division

A

Office of the Arristanr .4ltornev General

James P. Allison, Esq.Allison & Associates815 Brazos , Suite 204Austin, Texas 78701

Dear Mr. Allison:

W'azhin+" , D : 213530

GlUN1410

This refers to the reduction in the number of justice ofthe peace and constable precincts , and the redistricting of suchprecincts in San Patricio County, Texas , submitted to theAttorney General pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Actof 1965, as amended , 42 U.S.C.1973c. We received the informationto complete your submission on April 15, 1988 . Although we notedyour request for expedited consideration , we have been unable torespond until this time.

We have considered carefully the information you haveprovided , as well as comments and information received from otherinterested parties. At the outset, we note that almost half thecounty's population is Hispanic , and that the western and north-central portions of the county are predominantly Hispanic. Underthe existing justice of the peace election system , four justiceof the peace ("J.P.") districts are located in thesepredominantly Hispanic areas of the county while two suchdistricts are located in the eastern portion of the county whichis predominantly Anglo . Under the proposed system , the existingsix districts would be reduced to four in that the fourdistricts now existing in the predominantly Hispanic areas of thecounty would be consolidated into two districts . Thus, twojustice of the peace positions ( and two constable positions)would be eliminated and, given the pattern of polarized votingwhich appears to exist in the county, the opportunity presentlyenjoyed by Hispanics for electing candidates of their choice tothe office of justice of the peace ( and constable ) would besignificantly diminished, leading to a retrogression in their


USA 00012707


2

ability to elect candidates of their choice to these offices.See Beer v. United States , 425 U.S . 130 (1976 ). We find thisconclusion inescapable even though we recognize that the planproposed for implementing this new districting concept isidentical to the plan for the commissioners court whichpreviously was granted Section 5 preclearance in a differentcontext.

We have duly noted the county's explanation that thesechanges were adopted to equalize the workloads of the j ustices ofthe peace and to reduce the cost of operating the county's J.P.system. While these generally would appear to be appropriateconcerns for the county to consider in evaluating the need forjudicial-type offices of this nature , our information is that thecommissioners made no comparative study of the workloads or theeconomic status of the J.P. offices before adopting the changes.As we understand it, they did not consult the J. P. reports(although such reports apparently were readily available) whichwould have informed them of the workload actually being handledby each justice and the revenue being returned to the county byeach J.P. office . As a consequence , it appears that theproposed changes would in fact assign a substantial amount ofadditional work to the two J.P. offices (both located in thepredominantly Hispanic area of the county) which already are thebusiest while making no change with respect to the J. P. office(located in an Anglo majority district) which appears to have theleast amount of work ( and produces the smallest amount ofrevenue).

We also are not unmindful of the procedural concerns thatattach to these changes . Thus, we understand that thecommissioners at first sought to adopt these changes (at theJuly 13, 1987, meeting ) without notifying or seeking any inputfrom the affected justices of the peace or the affectedcommunities . Indeed , the agenda notice for the July 13th meetingindicated only that minor changes were slated for adoption torealign the J. P. districts with election precinct boundaries(though no such change was proposed or needed for the J.P.districts located in the predominantly Hispanic portions of thecounty), and we understand that the county attorney subsequentlyadvised that the agenda notice violated the Texas Open MeetingsAct. One reason advanced at the meeting for approaching thisissue in this manner was that the changes should be adoptedpromptly to avoid having members of the affected communities


USA 00012708


- a -

present to oppose them . When , after the July 13th meeting,Hispanic residents of the county did express strong opposition tothe changes , this led simply to a pro forma reconsideration ofthe prior action with no change in result.

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act , the submittingauthority has the burden of showing that a submitted change hasno discriminatory purpose or effect. See Georgia v. Un' eStates , 411 U.S. 526 ( 1973 ); see also the Procedures for theAdministration of Section 5 (28 C . F.R. 51.52 ( c)). In light of theconsiderations discussed above, I cannot conclude , as I mustunder the Voting Rights Act, that that burden has been sustainedin this instance . Therefore , on behalf of the Attorney General,I must object to the reduction in the number of justice of thepeace and constable precincts and the districting plan adoptedfor its implementation.

Of course , as provided by Section 5 of the Voting RightsAct, you have the right to seek a declaratory judgment from theUnited states District Court for the District of Columbia thatthese changes have neither the purpose nor will have the effectof denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race,color , or membership in a language minority group . In addition,Section 51.45 of the guidelines permits you to request that theAttorney General reconsider the objection . However , until theobjection is withdrawn or a judgment from the District ofColumbia court is obtained , the effect of the objection by theAttorney General is to make the submitted changes legallyunenforceable . 28 C.F . R. 51.10.

To enable this Department to meet its responsibility toenforce the Voting Rights Act, please inform us of the course ofaction San Patricio County plans to take with respect to thismatter. If you have any questions , feel free to call Mark A.Posner ( 202-724 -8388 ), Deputy Director of the Section 5 Unit ofthe Voting Section.




USA 00012709




Offla of At Anirtent Atro+ney Gerreral Wethi+ittoa . D.C. 20530

May t7, 17Cy

Dr. Ben ColwellSuperintendent , Refugio Independent

School DistrictP. 0. Drawer 190Refugio , Texas 78377

Dear Dr . Colwell:

This refers to the change in method of election from seventrustees elected at large (with numbered posts and plurality win)to five single-member districts and two at-large positions(plurality win), the districting plan, an implementation schedulewhich includes staggered terms for the two at-large seats, anannexation , and the selection of two polling places for theRefugio Independent School District in Refugio County, Texas,submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to Section 5 of theVoting Rights Act of 1965 , as amended , 42 U.S . C. 1973c. Wereceived the information to complete your submissions on March 7,1989.

The Attorney General does not interpose any objection tothe annexation . However, we feel a responsibility to point outthat Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act expressly provides thatthe failure of the Attorney General to object does not bar anysubsequent judicial action to enjoin the enforcement of suchchange . See the Procedures for the Administration of Section 5( 28 C.F . R. 51.41).

With regard to the remaining changes, we have givencareful consideration to the materials you have provided , as wellas information and comments from other interested parties. Atthe outset , we note that while the change in the method ofelecting the city council will provide minority voters with agreater opportunity to participate in the political process thanunder the current method , some of the information you haveprovided has been conflicting , and important elements of this


USA 00012710


- 2-

information remain incomplete . For example , your submissionincludes population by race and ethnicity on a block-by-blockbasis for some areas of the city, while for other areas thefigures are essentially estimates , the reliability of which isopen to serious question . It has been alleged , and theinformation available to us tends to confirm , that the proposeddistricting plan overconcentrates or "packs" minority voters intoDistrict 1, while a significant proportion of the remainingminority population is divided between Districts 3 and 4. Inview of the apparent pattern of polarized voting in schooldistrict elections , it appears that this packing andfragmentation of the minority community denies Hispanic and blackvoters an equal opportunity to participate in the politicalprocess and elect candidates of their choice to office.

our review also has revealed information to support theallegation that the mixed "5-2" system of district and at-largeseats was selected over the seven single-member district systempreferred by minority citizens so as to avoid the potential forfair minority representation in three majority-minoritydistricts . In addition , the selection of staggered terms for theat-large seats would preclude minority voters from using theelection device of single-shot voting and thus further limits theopportunity of minority voters to participate in the politicalprocess . Finally , we note that the polling places appear to havebeen chosen to benefit the white community and disadvantageminority voters, many of whom live a great distance from theproposed polling sites . We have received no adequate nonracialexplanation for these decisions which appear to be the product ofa decisionmaking process in which minority citizens did not havethe opportunity to effectively participate.

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the submittingauthority has the burden of showing that a submitted change hasneither a discriminatory purpose nor a discriminatory effect.

See Georgia v. United States , 411 U.S. 526 ( 1973 ); see also 28

C.F.R. 51 . 52. in light of the considerations discussed above, I

cannot conclude , as I must under the Voting Rights Act, that the

burden of showing the absence of a proscribed purpose has been

10 sustained in this instance . Therefore , on behalf of the . AttorneyGeneral, I must object to the submitted changes, with theexception of the annexation , as noted above.

Of course , as provided by Section 5 of the Voting RightsAct, you have the right to seek a declaratory judgment from the

United States District Court for the District of Columbia that

these changes have neither the purpose nor will have the effect


USA 00012711


-3-

of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race,color , or membership in a language minority group. In addition,Section 51 . 45 of the guidelines permits you to request that theAttorney General reconsider the objection . However , until tlie

objection is withdrawn or a judgment from the District ofColumbia Court is obtained , the effect of the objection by theAttorney General is to make the submitted changes legallyunenforceable . 28 C.F . R. 51.10.

Lastly , we note that the school district has yet to seekreview under Section 5 of its bilingual procedures though werequested that the district seek Section 5 clearance over fivemonths ago, in our November 28, 1988 , letter to you. Weunderstand that the district is in the process of gathering theinformation necessary to make a Section 5 submission and, in viewof the time that has passed , we would expect that such asubmission should be forthcoming immediately.. We would be happyto provide whatever assistance would be appropriate in thisregard.

To enable this Department to meet its responsibility toenforce the Voting Rights Act, please inform us of the course ofaction the Refugio Independent School District plans to take withrespect to this matter. If you have any questions , feel free tocall Sandra S. Coleman ( 202-724 -6718), Deputy Chief of the VotingSection.

Sincerely,

James P . Turner,Acting Assistant Attorney General



USA 00012712


LLS. Departir -1 ofJastke


Office of the Assistant Attorney General W*tkington , D.C. 20530

October 27, 1989

Richard D. Cullen, Esq.Cullen, Carsner , Seerden & CullenP. 0. Box 2938Victoria, Texas 77902

Dear Mr . Cullen:

This refers to the 1977 charter revisions , which provide foran increase in compensation for the mayor and councilmembers; thechange in the method of election from five at large, withnumbered posts and majority vote , to four single-member districtsand three at large , all by plurality vote for regular two-yearterms ; the districting plan ; the increase in the number ofcouncilmembers from five to seven ; the provision that the twononmayoral at-large members will be elected for concurrent terms;the implementation schedule , including the temporary increase inthe term of mayor and a change in staggering of terms from 3-2to 4-3; the elimination of numbered posts and the related changein ballot format ; a polling place change ; a precinct realignmentand the establishment of an additional precinct and the pollingplace therefor ; the candidate qualification residencyrequirement ; and the repeal of the candidate qualificationrequirement in Article III, Section 3.02(a )( 3) of the charter,for the City of Cuero in DeWitt County , Texas , submitted to theAttorney General on January 30 , 1989, pursuant to Section 5 ofthe Voting Rights Act of 1965 , as amended , 42 U.S . C. 1973c.We received the information to complete your submission onAugust 28, 1989.

The Attorney General does not interpose any objections tothe 1977 charter amendments, the polling place change, theprecinct realignment , the establishment of an additional precinctand a polling place therefor , and the repeal of the candidatequalification requirement in Article III, Section 3.02(a)(3) ofthe city charter . However , we feel a responsibility to point outthat Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act expressly provides thatthe failure of the Attorney General to object does not bar anysubsequent judicial action to enjoin the enforcement of suchchanges. See the; Procedures for the Administration of Section 5( 28 C.F . R. 51.41).

cc: Public File


USA 00012713


- 2 -

with regard to the remaining changes , we have consideredcarefully the information and materials you have supplied, alongwith information from other interested parties and the Bureau ofthe Census . At the outset, we note that even though minorityresidents constitute 47 percent of the city's total population,no minority member presently is among those elected to thecouncil and at no time in the past has the city council includedmore than one minority member, circumstances that appear to bedue largely to the combination of the existing at-large structurewith a pattern of racially polarized voting in municipalelections . We further note that the process leading to adoptionof the proposed changes was the result of litigation by minoritycitizens challenging the city's existing at-large election systemunder Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and that thoseplaintiffs are strongly opposed to the manner in which the newcouncil is to be elected , including the use of any at-largepositions other than the mayor.

We see no basis for interposing an objection to the proposeduse of two at-large seats in the new council. The features mostoften associated with minimizing minority representation --numbered posts and majority vote -- have been eliminated.However , we cannot reach a similar conclusion with respect tothe districts selected for the new plan. According to ourinformation, a last minute change was made to modify thedistricts to place a white incumbent in one of the predominatelyminority districts. This change reduced the minority proportionin this district from 65.2 to 60 . 7 percent . The modification ofdistricts solely to protect the interests of a white incumbentraises serious questions under the Act. See Ketchum v. Byrne ,740 F .2d 1398 , 1408 (7th Cir. 1984).

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the submittingauthority has the burden of showing that a submitted change hasno discriminatory purpose or effect . See Georgia v. UnitedStates , 411 U . S. 526 ( 1973 ); see also the Procedures for theAdministration of Section 5 (28 C . F.R. 51 . 52(c)). In satisfyingits burden , the submitting authority must demonstrate that theproposed changes are not tainted , even in part, by an invidiousracial purpose ; it is insufficient simply to establish that thereare some legitimate , nondiscriminatory reasons for the votingchanges . See Vil lage of Arlington Heights v. MetropolitanHousing , 429 U.S. 252 , 265-66 (1977); itv ofRome v. United States , 422 U . S. 156 , 172 (1980 ); Busbee V. Smith ,549 F . Supp . 494, 516-17 ( D.D.C. 1982), of 'r 459 U . S. 2166(1983). In light of the circumstances discussed above , I cannotconclude, as I must under the Voting Rights Act, that the city

has sustained its burden in this instance . Therefore, on behalf

of the Attorney General, I must object to the districting plan

proposed by the City of Cuero for implementing its proposed 4-2-1

election method.


i

USA 00012714


ti -

3

Of course , as provided by section 5 of the Voting RightsAct, you have the right to seek a declaratory judgment from theUnited States District Court for the District of Columbia thatthese changes have neither , the purpose nor will have the effect

den i.^.3 or A.^.r idgir g the right to vote on account of race or

color. In addition , Section 51.45 of the guidelines Der-mite youto request that the Attorney General reconsider the objection.However , until the objection is withdrawn or a judgement from theDistrict of Columbia Court is obtained , the method of electionchanges and districting plan remain legally unenforceable. 28C.F.R. 51.10.

Because the proposed implementation schedule has beenestablished to implement the objected-to changes, the AttorneyGeneral is unable to make a determination with regard to it.See 28 C .F.R. 51.35.

To enable this Department to meet its responsibility toenforce the Voting Rights Act, please inform us of the course ofaction the City of Cuero plans to take with respect to thesematters. If you have any questions , feel free to call Ms. LoraTredway ( 202-724-8290 ), an attorney in the Voting Section.

James P. TurnerActing Assistant Attorney General



USA 00012715




.:f.ce !.W--'a a Anornr, Gentml Mb. h ngran . DC 2(7173S

Ka 6 1991

Analeslie Muncy, Esq.City Attorney1500 Marilla, 7-B NorthDallas , Texas 75201

i,ear Ms . Muncy:

This refers to proposed amendments to the municipal charterof the City of Dallas which provide for an increase in the sizeof the city council from eleven to fifteen members ; a change inthe method of election for council members and mayor fromelection from eight single-member districts and three at-largeseats , including the mayor, for concurrent terms by majorityvote, to a 10-4-1 election system , which includes ten single-member local districts, four single-member regional quadrantdistricts, and the mayor at large for concurrent terms bymajority vote; a change from a two-year to a four-year term formayor; a decrease in the number of consecutive terms for themayor ; the changes in the definition of term in order todetermine the number of consecutive terms served for mayor; thechanges in the definition of term to determine the number ofconsecutive terms for non-mayoral councilmembers ; the change inthe effective date for new terms of office for mayor and council;the changes in candidate qualification (Chapter IV , Section 6);the alteration in ballot language to implement the proposed10-4-1 method of election (Chapter IV, Section 8); the changes inthe powers and duties of the mayor and council pursuant toChapter III, Section 2; Chapter XVI, Section 1; Chapter XVII,Section 2; and Chapter XXIV, Section 13; and the 1991.redistricting plan for the 10-4-1 election system for the City of-Dallas in Collin, Dallas , Denton, Kaufman , and Rockwall Counties,Texas , submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to section 5 ofthe Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended , 42 U.S . C. 1973c. Wereceived your last submittal of information necessary to reviewthese matters on May 3, 1991.

We have carefully reviewed the information you haveprovided, along with information available to us from relatedSection 5 submissions, the Bureau of the Census , and otherinterested parties. At the outset, we note that 1990 Census data

reflect a significant increase in the city's Hispanic proporti--r


USA 00012716


of total population and that black and Hispanic residents nowconstitute 50 percent of the city' s total population. We alsonote that the federal L11vsLil-' has found that the existing14.i4 Court

8-3 election method for the city council violates Section 2 ofthe Voting Rights Act and has ordered new elect ions as soon aspossible under a plan that will 'remedy the adverse effects ofthe 8-3 system -- the denial of equal access to the City'spolitical process -- which African[ -Americans) and Mexican-Americans have suffered in Dallas , for some 10-15 years.'Williamss v. =Y_21- Dallas , 734 F. Supp . 1317, 1412 ( N.D. Tex.1990 ) (liability); No. 3-88 - 1152-R (N.D. Tax .) ( Feb. 1 , 4, 5, and27, 1991) ( remedy ); 59 U.S . L.W. 3672 (U.S. Apr . 2, 1991) (No.A-716), denying ^uBlication to varatte stay from No. 91-1178 (5thCir. Mar. 15, 1991 ) (order staying remedial orders ). In its mostrecent order the court of appeals deferred a review of the meritsof the appeal in order to provide a 'reasonable time ' for theJustice Department to review a submission of a change in themethod of election and a redistricting plan proposed by the city.

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the submittingauthority has the burden of demonstrating that a proposed changedoes not have a racially discriminatory purpose or effect.Georgia v . United States , 411 U.S . 526 (1973 ). In addition,where , as here , an existing election system has been held by thecourt to be in violation of the Voting Rights Act, the affectedjurisdiction not only bears the burden of demonstrating that theproposed plan is free of the proscribed purpose and effect, butalso the plan must remedy the dilution found by the court toexist . See S . Rep. No . 417, 97th Cong .,. 2d Sees . 31 (1982). Seealso mod v. Crenshaw County , 831 F . 2d 246 , 249 (11th Cir.1987 ); Esae v. Sumter County Sch. Qist ., 775 F.2d 1509, 1510(11th Cir. 1985 ). The proposed 10-4-1 election method now beforeus for review under Section 5 is the city' s proposal to remedythe violation found by the jilliams court.

In addressing these matters , the city has presented to usalternative proposals consisting of one component of fourquadrant districts ( 4C) and two alternative components for theten local districts t1OF(3 ) and 101 ( 1)3. You have explained that

the city council has formally adopted both ten-districtcomponents and that while 10F(3 ) initially was the city'spreferred plan , the city now considers 101(1) to be its preferredten-district plan. The city maintains that its proposedelectoral system and the redistricting plan have no raciallydiscriminatory purpose or effect and provide minority voters with

an equal opportunity to participate and elect their ' chosen

candidates . Concerns have been raised , however , that under the

proposed '10-4-1" system it is not possible to devise a plan in

which minority voters will be afforded the same opportunity as

white voters to elect their preferred candidates to the city

council. Our review of the alternatives currently undersubmission to us lends some credence to those concerns.


USA 00012717


2:13-cv-00193 localredistricting objectionletterscase 2:13-cv-00193 document 670-15 filed in txsd on...

Documents