HomeMy WebLinkAboutPR 14529: ELECTORAL PROCESSP.~R. No. 14529
01/24/08 is
RESOLUTION N0.
A RESOLUTION AS IT PERTAINS TO THE ELECTORAL
• PROCESS (REQUESTED BY COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS)
WHEREAS, the City of Port Arthur was founded in 1898 and has
operated under its own Charter since March 8, 1932; and
WHEREAS, from 1932 until 1954, City Officials were elected by
at-large vote; and
WHEREAS, between 1954 and 1963, Port Arthur adopted the
Commission-Manager form of government and the single member
district or ward system wherein each of the seven commissioners was
required to be a resident of the district, which he or she
represented, and each was elected by only the qualified voters of
the district for a two year term; and
WHEREAS, in 1963, as a result of a Charter change ,_ the City
Council was governed by a seven member council and a professional
manager who carries out the policies of the .City Council under a 6-
0-1 plan; and.
WHEREAS, the- 6-0-1 plan provided for councilmembers to be
required to live in their districts, and be elected at-large;. and
WHEREAS, the 6-0-1 plan provided for the election of the mayor _
on an at-large basis; and
WHEREAS, based on a referendum on November 8, 1977, the City
of Port Arthur consolidated with ,Pear Ridge and Lakeview; and
z.pi14529 ~ ~
WHEREAS, based on this consolidation, the City Council
increased the number of seats from six councilmembers to seven
councilmembers per Ordinance No. 78-11 and 78-15, and adopted the
7-0-1 plan wherein the seventh councilmember would be elected by an
at-large, majority vote; and
WHEREAS, on January 21, 1980, the City Council adopted the 8-
0-1 plan wherein the eight members were required to reside in
different districts and each had to obtain a majority of the votes
cast by all the qualified voters in the City; and
WHEREAS, there were disputes in the community as to the
electoral-plan, which lead to litigation that. was finally decided
in the Supreme Court of-the United States; and
WHEREAS, in the case of City of Port Arthur, Texasy Appellant,
vs. United States of America and Abraham Douglas, Elgie Jenkins,
Walter Mosley, and Willie Lewis, Appellees, on Appeal from the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in Cause
No. 81-708, the Supreme Court reviewed the history of the
litigation and the submissions to the Justice Department; and
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court reviewed the 4-4-1 plan and the 4-
3-2 plan that was submitted by the City as an alternative plan as
well 'as the requirement by the District Court that Positions 7 and
8 be elected by plurality vote; and
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court on December 13, 1982 upheld the 4-
3-2 plan. with Positions 7 and 8 elected by plurality vote; and
z.pr14529 ~ ~
WHEREAS, the Charter was subsequently changed as to adopt the
4-3-2 plan with Positions 7 and 8 elected by a plurality vote; and
WHEREAS, at the January 17, 1998 Special Election, the voters
approved Proposition No. 3, wherein the terms for Council Positions
for 7 and 8 were changed from three years to two years; and -
WHEREAS, the census information has shown the following
history and change in demographics:
1990 CENSUS
Anglo/Other -Hispanic Black Asian Total
District #1 2,701 1,106 9,349 1,096 14,252
District #2 7,764 1,860 .3,587 1,158 14,369
District #3 11,496 1,265 1,573 480 14,914
District #4 4,669 498 10,003 19 .15,189
TOTAL 26,630 4,629 24,512 2,753 58,724
2000 CENSUS
Anglo/Other Hispanic Black Asian Total
District #1
[Gain(Loss)] 1,676
(1026) 1,901
795 8,053
(1,296) 855
(241) 12,485
(1,767)
District #2
(Gain (Loss)] 4,291
(3,473) 4,792
2,932 5,318
1,731 .1,689
531 16,090
1,721
District #3
[Gain(LOSS)] 8,611
(2,885) 2,808
1,443 3,495
1,922 1,306
826 16,220
1,306
District #4
[Gain(Loss)J 3,809
860 582
84 8,421
(1,582) 196
177 13,008
(2,181)
TOTAL 18,387 10,083 25,287 4,046 57,803
City Wide
[Gain(Loss)] (8,243) 5,254 775 1,293 (921)
z.pr14529 - 3
and
WHEREAS, based on the changing demographics, the majority of
the City Council (Mayor Ortiz, Councilmember Barker, Councilmember
Henderson, Councilmember Prince, .Mayor Pro Tem Thompson, and
Councilmember Sinegal) voted for the Proposition changing the terms
of Positions 7,and 8 to three year terms to be elected by majority
vote to be submitted to the voters with Councilmember Beard and
Councilmember. Lewis voted against and .Councilmember Flood being
absent; and
WHEREAS, the following Proposition .was submitted to the
voters:
PROPOSITION NO-. THREE:
Shall Section lA of Article II of the City Charter be
amended as follows:
"Section lA. Council Positions 7.and 8
Until May 2008, Council Positions 7 and 8
shall have two (2) year terms. The elections
of Council Positions 7 and 8 shall be in the
year 2008 and thereafter by a majority vote,
and they shall have three (3) year terms.
This provision supersedes any conflicting
portion of the City Charter in relation to
the election of Council Positions 7 and 8."
and
WHEREAS, as directed~by the City Council, a February 16, 2006
submission was made to the Justice Department, as delineated in
Exhibit "A", attached hereto; and
z.pr15529- q
WHHEREAS, additional information as to the election returns
for the Positions 7 and 8 for the years 2000, 2002, and 2004 was
provided to the Justice Department on April 4, 2006, a copy of the
cover letters being attached hereto as Exhibit."B"; and
WHEREAS, the Justice Department signed a "No Objection" letter
on April 24, 2006, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
"C"; and
WHEREAS, at the May 13, 2006 Special Election, the voters
approved Proposition No. 3, wherein the terms for Positions 7 and 8
were changed from .two years to three years with'the Positions to be
elected by a majority vote; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 06-26 on May
23, 2D06, canvassing the election results and amending the City
Charter, based on the "NO Objection" letter, received on April 24,
2006; and ,
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 06-26 by Mayor
Ortiz and Councilmembers Barker, Henderson, Flood, Prince, and
Sinegal voting for the Ordinance, with no dissenting votes; and
WHEREAS, the Justice Department was notified of the Council's
action, per the correspondence dated May 26, 2006, a copy of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit "D"; and
WHEREAS, on July 19, 2006, the Justice Department issued
another "No Objection" letter, as delineated in Exhibit "E"
attached hereto; and
z.pi14529 ~ 5
'WHEREAS, Councilmember Lewis is expressing concerns as to the
effect of the existing electoral plan on other Non-African American
minorities; and
WHEREAS,. the City Council has not received any written.
complaints from any Non-African American minorities; and
WHEREAS, at the request of Councilmember Lewis, the City
Council is asking the Justice Department to reconsider its .review
of the existing electoral plan and practices as to whether or not
it has the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote of any
aggrieved minority and rescind its previous "No Objection" letters
as they pertain to Positions 7 and 8.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PORT ARTHIIR, TEXAS: `
Section 1. That the facts and opinions in the preamble are
true and correct.
Section 2. That the City Secretary is herein requested
to send a certified copy .of this Resolution to the Justice
Department asking the Justice Department to reconsider its review
of the. existing electoral plan and practices as to whether or not
it has the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote of
any aggrieved minority, and rescind its previous "No Objection" .
letters as they pertain to Positions 7 and 8.
Section 3.
That a copy of the caption of this Resolution
be spread upon the. Minutes of the City Council.
z.pna529
6
READ, ADOPTED AND APPROVED on this day of
A.D., 2008, at a Meeting of the City Council of
the City of Port Arthur, Texas, by the following vote: AYES:
Mayor
Councilmembers
NOES:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
ACTING CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
(SEE CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM AND
OBJECTIONS DATED JANUARY 24, 2008
CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVED FOR ADMINISTRATION:
CITY MANAGER
z.pr14529 _ ~
EXHIBIT "A"
OSCAR G: ORTIZ• MAYOR
RONNIE-H. THOMPSON, MAYOR PRO-TEM
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
WILLIE LEWIS, JR.
FELIX A. BARKER
THOMAS J. HENDERSON
M.?RTIN FLOOD
JOHN BEARO, JR.
OELORIS PRINCE
MICHAEL'SHANE" SINEGAL
City of
.. i~.IpP~p/`
ort~rthu
Texas
CERTIFIED MAIL (RRR) 7003
February 16, 2006
80 0000 2591 3494
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Civil Rights Division, Room 7254-NWB
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Voting Section 1600G
Washington, D.C. 20530
OVERNIGHT EXPRESS
TJ., S. Department of Justice
Chief, Voting Section
Civil Rights Division- .
Room 7254-NWB
Department of Justice
1800 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
RE: SUBMISSION UNDER SECTION S OF VOTING-RIGHTS ACT
(1) General Election to elect councilmembers
'from-Districts 5, 6, 7, and 8 on May 13,
2006 (Ordinance No. 06-05)
(2) Special Election for,Local Option _
Election on May 13, 2006 (Ordinance No.
06-07)
(3) Special Election for Charter Change for
May 13, 2006 Special Election Ordinance
No. 06-OB)
(4) Special Election to sell Fairlea Park
(Ordinance No. 06-09)
(5) Change of-Voting Locations due to
Hurricane Rita damage and to provide
additional parking
MARK T. SOKOLOW
CITY ATTORNEY
z.uedoj_epecial election.lt r5 I.
P0. BOX 1089 PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS 77641-1089 • 409/983-8126 fAX 409/963-8124
Dear Sir(s):
The following is a submission made on behalf of the City
of Port Arthur (the ^City"), which is located.in Jefferson and
Orange Counties, Texas, pursuant- to Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965, as amended, and in compliance with the
regulations promulgated thereunder.
This submission pertains to Special Elections and a
General Election to be held on May 13, 2006.
SYNOPSIS
Pursuant to .28 -CFR 51.17-, the City is making this
submission -since it is holding an Election to submit
propositions as to certain Charter Change Amendments and is
making changes to several voting locations. On. February 14,
2006, the City Council reviewed and adopted ordinances to call
Special Elections and a General Election. The following
councilmembers were. present: Councilmember Barker,
Councilmember Henderson, Councilmember Prince, Mayor Pro Tem
Thompson, Councilmember Beard, Couhcilmember Lewis, and
Councilmember Sinegal. Councilmember Flood was absent.
On February 14,.2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance
No. 06-OS which ordered a General Election on May 13, 2006 as
to Council Positions 5, 6, 7 and 8. The voting location was
changed from the Sabine Fire Station, which was destroyed in
Hurricane Rita, to the Sabine High School.. The voting
location was changed from Fire Station No. 2 at 1201 Grannis
to the H.O.P.E. building at 701 Rev. Dr. Ransom Howard Street
as to increase the availability of parking. Councilmember
Henderson made the Motion to adopt this Ordinance, which was
seconded by Councilmember Sinegal. Mayor Ortiz, Councilmember
Barker, Councilmember Henderson, Councilmember Prince, Mayor
Pro Tem Thompson, Councilmember Beard, Councilmember Lewis,
and Councilmember Sinegal voted for this Ordinance.
Councilmember Flood was absent. No one voted against this
ordinance.
On February 14, 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance
No. 06-07 which ordered a Local Option Election (Special
Election) as to submit a proposition as to the legal sale of
mixed beverages in restaurants by food and beverage
certificate holders only. Councilmember Henderson made the
Motion to -adopt this Ordinance, which was seconded by
Councilmember Sinegal. Mayor Ortiz, Councilmember Barker,
Councilmember Henderson, Councilmember Prince, Mayor Pro Tem
Thompson, Councilmember Beard, Councilmember Lewis, and
z.uedoj_epecial elect Lon.ltrs y
Councilmember Sinegal voted for this Ordinance. Councilmember
Flood was absent. No one voted against this Ordinance.
On February 14, 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance
No.06-08, whichpordered a Special Election on May 13, 2006 as
to submit propositions as to amend the City Charter. The
majority of the City Council.. decided' to submit the following
propositions. Each proposition was added to the Ordinance by
a separate Motion. Once all the propositions were added to
the Ordinance, the City Council approved the main motion to
the Ordinance with the inserted .propositions. The original
Motion to adopt the Ordinance was made by Councilmember
Sinegal. The Motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Thompson.
PROPOSITION
Shall -the last line of Section 1 of Article II of
the City Charter be deleted as to remove the
prohibition that neither the Mayor nor any
Councilmember shall serve more than three (3)
consecutive terms in the same office.
(Requested to be placed on the May 13, 2006
ballot per the Motion of Mayor Ortiz. The Motion
was seconded by Councilmember Prince. Mayor
Ortiz, Councilmember Barker, Councilmember
Henderson, Councilmember Prince, and Mayor Pro
Tem Thompson voted for this Proposition being
added to the ballot. Councilmember Beard,
Councilmember Lewis, and- Councilmember Sinegal
voted against the Proposition being added to the
iday 13, 2006 ballot. Councilmember Flood was
absent.)
PROPOSITION
Shall Section lA of Article II of the City Charter be
amended as follows:
"Section lA. Council Positions 7 and 8
Until May 2008, Council Positions 7 and 8 shall
have two (2) year terms. The elections of
Council Positions 7 and 8 shall be in the year
2008 and thereafter by a majority vote, ahd they
shall have three (3) year terms. This ,.provision
supercedes any conflicting portion of the City
z.uedoi epecinl election.ltr5- 3
Charter in relation to the election of Council
Positions 7 and 8."
(Requested to be placed on the May 13, 2006
ballot per the Motion of Councilmember Sinegal.
The Motion .was seconded by Councilmember Prince.
Mayor Ortiz, Councilmember Barker, Councilmember
Henderson, Councilmember Prince, Mayor Pro Tem
Thompson, and Councilmember Sinegal voted for
this Proposition being added to the ballot.
Councilmember Beard and Councilmember Lewis voted
against the Proposition being added to the May
13, 2006 ballot. Councilmember Flood was
absent.)
PROPOSITION:
Sha11 Section 7~of Article XIV of the City Charter be
amended as follows:
"Section 7. Sale or Lease of Property.
"No right, title or interest of the
City and to any property shall be sold
or leased unless authorized by the City
Council by a Resolution if it is a
lease and by an Ordinance if it is a
sale."
(Requested to be placed. .on the May 13, 2006
ballot per the Motion of Councilmember Sinegal.
The Motion .was seconded by Councilmember
Henderson. Mayo r. Ortiz, Councilmember Barker,
Councilmember Henderson, Councilmember Prince,
Mayor Pro Tem Thompson, Councilmember Beard,
Councilmember Lewis, and Councilmember Sinegal
voted for this Proposition being added to the
ballot. No one voted against the Proposition
being added to the May 13, 2006 ballot.
Councilmember Flood was absent.)
PROPOSITION:
Shall the fourth sentence of Section 1 of Article
XIV of the City Charter be amended as follows:
z.usdoj _epecial elect ion .l trs 4
"All contracts for expenditures shall
be authorized in accordance with the
minimum standards as delineated under
state law."
(Requested to be placed on the May 13, 2006
ballot per the Motion of Councilmember Beard. The
Motion was seconded by Councilmember Henderson.
Mayor Ortiz, Councilmember Barker, Councilmember
Henderson, Councilmember Prince, Mayor Pro Tem
Thompson, Councilmember Beard, Councilmember
Sinegal, and Councilmember Lewis voted for the
Proposition being added to ttie ballot. No one
voted against the proposition being added to the
May 13 ,' 2006 ballot. Councilmember Flood was
absent.)
PROPOSITION:
Shall the first two sentences of Section 3 of
Article II of the City Charter be amended as it
pertains to salaries and car allowances for. the
Mayor and City Council.
"The Mayor and Councilmembers shall
receive a salary and car allowance as
delineated in an Ordinance set by the
City Council at such time as they
approve the fiscal year budget for the
City, with due opportunity for public
comment."
(Requested to be placed on the May 13, 2006
ballot .per the Motion of Councilmember Henderson,
The Motion was seconded by Councilmember Sinegal.
Mayor Ortiz Councilmember Barker, Councilmember
Henderson, Councilmember Prince, Mayor Pro Tem
Thompson, Councilmember Beard,;. and Councilmember
Lewis voted for the Proposition to being added to
the ballot. Councilmember Sinegal voted against
the Proposition being added to the May 13, 2006
ballot. Councilmember Flood was absent.)
Once the five (5) propositions were added to the
Ordinance, the City Council_ approved,-Ordinance No. 06-
08. Mayor Ortiz, Councilmember Barker, Councilmember
Henderson, Councilmember Prince, Mayor Pro Tem
z.usdo] spec Lal elec[SOn.l[rs ~ 5
Thompson, Councilmember Beard, Councilmember Lewis,
and Councilmember Sinegal voted for the Ordinance as
amended. Councilmember Flood was absent.
On February 14, 2006, the City Council approved Ordinance
No. 06-09, which ordered a Special Election on May 13, 2006 to
submit a proposition as to the sale of Fairlea Park.
Councilmember Beard made the Motion to.approve this Ordinance..
It was seconded by Councilmember Sinegal. Mayor Ortiz,
Councilmember Barker, Councilmember Henderson, Councilmember
Prince, Councilmember Beard, and Councilmember Lewis voted for
the Proposition being added to the ballot. Councilmember
Sinegal, Mayor Pro Tem Thompson and Councilmember Flood were
absent during this vote..
Pursuant to 28 CFR 51.27, which sets forth the "required
contents" of a submission, the City hereby submits- the
following:
a) Resolution embodying proposed changes: Attached as
Exhibit "A'" "B" "C" and "D" are Ordinance No.s 06-05,
e 06-07, 06-08, and 06-09 ordering Special Elections and a
General Election.
b) Explanation of difference betcaeen the submitted changes
and the prior law or practice:
Presently:
Proposed:
Charter was last amended
at the Council Election o_n
May 15, 2004.
Special Election for
new Charter Amendments
as authorized by Sections
9.004 and 9.005 Local
Government. Code, and
Section 52.072 Texas
Election Code
PROPOSITION
"Shall -the last line- of
Section 1 of Article II of
the City Charter be
deleted as to remove the
prohibition that neither
the Mayor nor any
Councilmember shall serve
more than three (3)
consecutive terms in the
same office." (Presently,
the council members are
z.usdoj _special election.ltzs _ 6
limited to three .terms.
This would °remove this
limitation.)
PROPOSITION
Shall Section lA. of
Article II of the City
Charter be amended as
follows:.
"Section lA. Council
j Positions 7 ahd 8.
` Until May 2008, Council
Positions 7 and 8 shall
have two (2) year terms.
The elections of Council
Positions 7 and 8 shall
be in the year 2008 and
thereafter by a majority
vote, and they shall have
three (3) year terms.
This provision supercedes
any conflicting ,portion
of the City Charter in
relation to the election
of Council Positions 7
and 8."
(Presently, Positions 7
and 8 are elected to two
year terms by a plurality
vote. This proposition
would increase their term
to three (3) year terms by
a majority vote. Per
Article 11, Section 11 of
the Texas Constitution, if
a council position has a
three year term, -the
election must- be by
majority vote.)
PROPOSITION
Shall Section 7 of Article
XIV of the City Charter tie
amended as follows:
z.uedoj _epeclal electlon:ltr5 7
"Section 7. Sale or Lease
of Property.
k
z.usdo]_special electlon.ltrs ~ 8
"No right, title or
interest of the City and
to -any property shall be
sold or leased unless
authorized by the City
Council by a Resolution if
it is a lease and by an
Ordinance if it is a
sale." (This proposition
would remove the present
restrictions as• to the
sale and lease of property
which calls for elections
if the value of the
property (excluding the
downtown area) is worth
more than $25,000 and
places a limit on the
terms for leases)
PROPOSITION:
Shall the fourth sentence
of Section 1 of Article
XIV of the City Charter be
amended as follows:
"All contracts for
expenditures shall be
authorized in accordance
with the minimum standards
as delineated under state
law."
(There is a potential
conflict with the minimum
bidding requirements of
$15,000 in the existing
City Charter and the'
minimum bidding
requirements of $25,OOO.in
state law. This
proposition would resolve ,
this potential conflict)
PROPOSITION:
Shall the first two
sentences of Section 3
of Article II .of the
City Charter be amended
as it pertains- to
salaries and car
allowances for the Mayor
and City Council.
"The Mayor and
Councilmembers shall
receive a salary and car
allowance as delineated
'~ in an Ordinance set by
the City Council at such
time as they approve the
fiscal year budget for
the City, with due
opportunity for public
comment . "
(This proposition is
` simply a change in the
method of setting Council
salaries. Presently, the
dollar amount is set'in
the Charter. The change
would give the Council the
flexibility to set the
salaries by Ordinance.)
The City used the following
voting locations in the
May 2005 elections:
City Hall
Port Arthur Public Library
Fire Station No. 1
Fire Station_NO. 2
Fire Station No . 3
Sabine Pass Fire Station No. 4
There will be changes in
the voting locations
damaged or destroyed by
Hurricane Rita, as
authorized. by Section
85.062 Election Code and
also as to provide
additional parking. The
changes are as follows:
City Hall
Port Arthur Public Library
Fire Station No. 1
:.usdoi_speclal election.ltr5 9
* Change from Fire Station
No. 2 to H.O.P.E..
Building, 701 Rev.. Dr.
Ransom Howard Street as to
increase parking
Fire Station No. 3
* Change from Sabine Pass
Fire Station No. 4 to
Sabine Pass High School,
5641 S. Gulfway Drive,
since Sabine Pass Fire
Station No. 4 was
destroyed during Hurricane
Rita
c) Person making submission:
Mark T. Sokolow
City Attorney
CITY OF PORT ARTHUR
444 4th Street
P. 0. Box 1089
Port Arthur, TX. 77641-1089
(409) 983-8126
d) Submitting Authority: City of Port Arthur, Texas, a
home rule city.
e) Location: Jefferson and Orange Counties, State of Texas.
f) Responsible Authority: City Council of the City of
Port Arthur, Texas.
g) Statutory authority for proposed changes:
Change
Charter Change
Statutory Authority
Sections 9.004-and 9.005
Local Government Code and
Section 52..072 Texas
Election Code authorize
the City to amend the City
Charter.
Voting Locations
Section 82.065 of the
Election Code authorizes
the City Council to
delineate the voting
locations.
z.vadoj_epeclal elect ion.ltr5 10
h)
i)
j)
k)
Proposed date of adoption:.
(1) February 14, 2006. Attached are Ordinance No.'s
06-05, 06-07, 06-08, 06-09 that was certified by the
City Secretary as being adopted on this date.
Date of enforcement:
(1) May 13, 2006 (Date of Election)
Area affected: City of Port Arthur, Texas.
Reasons for changes:
The propositions amending the City Charter would make
changes as 'to the voting practices in the City.
• First Proposition in Ordinance No. 06-OS removes the
prohibition in the Charter that the Mayor nor any
Council member shall serve more than three
consecutive terms. The majority of the City Council
is requesting that this change be made as it
restricts the ability of the residents of the City
in keeping experienced council members in a
particular position.
• Second Proposition in Ordinance No. 06-OS
delineates that the elections for Council Positions
7 and. 8 shall be by a majority vote and that the
terms will be three years. The majority of. the City
Council wants all of the terms of the council
members to be three years. All of the other council
members have three (3) year terms and are elected by
majority vote. Also,~under Article 1I, Section 11
of the Texas Constitution, a councilmember who has a
three year term must be elected by a majority vote.
The new voting locations as to Sabine High School and the
H.O.P.E. 'building are being submitted. as they would
affect voting practices in the area.
You are being notified as to the other Charter changes
(sale and. lease of land, setting salaries by Ordinance,
as well-as bidding procedures), as well as the other
propositions as to mixed drinks and sale of Fairlea Park.
These do not affect voting practices. .
z.uedoi _apecial elec[Son.ltrs 11
1) Effect on minority groups: The majority of the City
Council does not believe that there will be an~adverse affect
on minority groups. The. plurality requirement as to Positions
7 and 8 was originally upheld by the Supreme Court on December
13, 1982. This litigation involved a Declaratory Judgment.
Action that was filed by the City against the United States in
the District of Columbia, Cause No. 80-0648.
On July 14, 1981, the panel accepted the joint.
submission of the City of Port Arthur and the United States
for a 4-2-3 plan, which involved six single member seats
and three at-large seats. "Four representatives will be
elected.from the four single-member districts, Districts 1
through 4, into which the City is divided. Then, one
council member will be chosen by District 5, .which is a
combination of .Districts 1 and 4 and another. by District 6
which is a combination of Districts 2 and 3. Finally,
three individuals will be elected at-large; two must reside
in Districts 5 and 6 respectively, and the third .place
which will be filled by the mayor has no residency
requirement." After considering the comments of the.
intervenor, who requested that a plurality requirement be
added, and oral arguments of all counsel, the panel added
the requirement that the two non-mayoral at-large
representatives be by plurality vote. The panel was
comprised of Judges Wright, Richey,-and Smith. Judge
47right and Judge Richey were of the majority. Judge Smith
dissented, indicating that the submission of the City and
the United States should have been approved without
condition. This matter was appealed to the Supreme Court
of Texas. It was argued on October 3, 1982 and decided on
December 13, 1982.- The majority opinion of the Supreme
Court held that:
"The District Court did not exceed its authority in
conditioning clearance of the electoral plan on
the elimination of the majority-vote requirement.
(a) Section 5 does not forbid all expansion
of municipal borders that dilute the
voting power of particular groups in
the community. However, such an
expansion can be approved only if
modifications in the electoral plan,
calculated to neutralize to the extent
possible .any adverse effect on the
political participation of minority
groups, are adopted..
z.uedoj _special elect ion:ltrs 12
(b) The .District Court did not err in
holding that the. majority-vote
requirement as to the nonmayoral, at-
large council seats must be eliminated
in order to sufficiently dispel the
impact of Port Arthur's expansion on
the relative political strength of the
black community. Whether the plan
adequately reflected black political
strength in the enlarged city is not an
issue that. is determinable with
mathematical precision. Since the plan
undervalued to some extent the
political strength of the black
community, eliminating the majority-
vote requirement was an understandable
adjustment. And, even if the electoral
scheme might otherwise be said to
reflect the political strength of the
minority community,' elimination of the
majority-vote element was a reasonable
hedge against the possibility that the
scheme contained a purposefully
discriminatory element."
Due to the .change in racial demographics in the City,. the
existing City Council rio longer sees the need for a plurality
requirement and would prefer that Positions 7 and 8 have a
three-year term.
To illustrate the change in racial demographics, the
following is noted. The June 12, 1981 Memorandum of Opinion
signed by Judges Wright, Smith, and Richey contain numerous
.findings of fact as to the racial demographics of the City and
its affect as to the electoral process. It cited the 1980
census, with the following data:
1980 CENSUS
DISTRICT
TOTAL POPULATION
TOTAL BLACK ~ BLACR
1 14,649 11,846 80.86$
2 15,855 3,131 19.81
3 16;033 919 05.739s
4 14.,457 8,835 61.11'k
z.usdoj_epecial election.ltrs 13
The Court noted that, "Since 1963 when the 6-0-1 plan was
implemented, no black candidate has ever won a councilmanic
seat in Port Arthur when confronted by a white." Furthermore,
the Court noted that, "Although a black has not defeated a
white~in a councilmanic election since 1963, a single black,.
Arthur Guidry, has continuously served on the City Council
from that time to the present." Therefore, at the time of
this litigation, there was only one-black ~ouncilmember on the _
City Council. The intervenors in the litigation were the
following private citizens - Abraham Douglas, Elgie Jenkins,
Walter Mosley, and-Willie Lewis. As a result of the change in
the electoral system,. the council composition has changed, as
noted in the attached City Council History Log. For example,
iri the, December 1981 election, Walter Mosley and Arthur Guidry
became councilmembers, therefore raising the number of black
councilmembers to two. In the May 1983 election, Arthur
Guidry, Bannister Baptiste, Willie Lewis, and Walter Mosley
were on the council, therefore, raising the number of black
councilmembers to four out of the total of nine councilmembers
(including the Mayor). This showed the success of the new
system as to electing more African Americans to the City
Council. It also showed how the .litigants became incorporated
into the election process and municipal affairs. The Attorney
for the Intervenors„ Mr. Morrison, became the Municipal Court
Judge on 1984; and has served continuously in that capacity.
As of today's date, the present composition of the Council is
five African Americans (Councilmember Sinegal, Councilmember
Prince, Councilmember Beard, Councilmember Flood and
Councilmember Lewis), three Whites (Mayor Pro Tem Thompson,
Councilmember Henderson, and Councilmember Barker), and one
Hispanic (Mayor Ortiz).-
The following is a comparison of the 1990 and 2000 census
which shows the increasing diversity of the population within
the districts. This comparison was provided to the Justice
Department on December 17, 2001 as it pertains to the
redistricting and revision on the Council district boundaries
as a result of the 2000 census.
1990
Anglo/Other Hispanic Black Asian Total
District.#1 2,701 1,106 -9,349 1,096 14,252
District #2 7,764 1,860 3,587 1,158 14,369
District #3 11,496 1,265 1,573 480 14,914
District #4 4,669 498 .10,003 19 15,189
TOTAL 26,630 4,829 24,512 2,753 58,724
z.uadoj-special electSon.ltr5 ~4
r
2000 CENSUS _
Anglo/Other Hispanic Black Asian Total
District #1
[Gain(Loss)] 1,676
(1026) 1,901
795 8,053
(1,296) 855
(241) 12,485
(1,767)
District #2
[Gain(Loss)] 4,291
(3,473) 4,792
2,932 5,318
1,731 1,689
531 16,090
1,721
District #3
[Gain(Loss)] 8,611
(2,885) 2,808
1,443 3,495
1,922 1,306
826 16,220
1,306
District #4
[Gain(LOSS)] 3,809
860 582
84 8,421
(1,582) 196
177 13,008
(2,181)
TOTAL. 18,387 10,083 25,287 4,046 57,803
City Wide (8,243) 5,254 775 1,293 P921)
With the change in racial demographics throughout the
City and the progress that African Americans have made in
obtaining representation on City Council, the concerns of the
Court in 1982 appears to have beeh resolved and there is no
longer a need for plurality voting as to Positions 7 and 8.
m) Litigation: There is past litigation concerning. the
effect of the City's voting practices.
n) Preclearance: The Justice Department is requested to
issue an opinion on the submittal.
Based upon careful review of the Voting .Rights Act and
the regulations promulgated thereunder, the City considers the
proposed changes in the City Charter and the changes in voting
locations as not having the effect of denying or abridging the
right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a
minority group.
Your expedited review of this submission
appreciated, since the City will hold the elections
2006. The Charter Changes involving a new
practice, or procedure will. not be effective
Attorney General interposes •a "no objection" le
Declaratory Judgment has been obtained.
would be
on May 13,
standard,
until the
tter or a
:.ueao)_epecial election.ltrs IS
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me
at your convenience.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Si~n/c~erely, A p /
/ G~~ <r2i"lM/~-frv~
Mark T. Sokolow
City Attorney
MTS:ts
Enclosures: Ordinance No's.. 06-05, 06-07, 06-08, and 06-09
Article 11, Section 11, Texas Constitution
City Council History Log
cc: Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Secretary
Director of Planning
Right of Way Specialist
Tom Maness
District Attorney
JEFFERSON COUNTY
1001 Pearl
Beaumont, TX 77001
z.uedo]_epecial election.ltrs I6
cc: Carole Keeton Strayhorn
Comptroller of Public Accounts
LBJ Office Building
Room 104
Austin, TX 78774
SECRETARY OF STATE ,
State Capitol Building
Room 1E.8
Austin, TX 78701
County Clerk
JEFFERSON COUNTY
P. O. Box 1151
Beaumont. TX 77704
County Clerk
ORANGE COUNTY
801 Division
Orange, TX 7-7630
John D. Kimbrough
ORANGE COUNTY
801 Division
Orange, TX -77630
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE
333 Guadalupe
P. O. Box 149104
Austin, TX 78714-9104 _
z.uedoj_epecial elect SOn.7[r5 ~~
EXHIBIT "B"
OSCAR G. ORTIZ, MAYOR
BONNIE H. THOMPSON, MAYOR PRO-TEM
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
WILLIE LEWIS. JR. CL
FELIX A. BARKER
THOMAS J.~HGNDERSON
MARTIN FLOOD
Jr,Htd BEARD, JR.
DELORIS PRINCE
MICHAEL "SHANE" SINEGAL .
P.pril 4, 2006
VIA FACSIMILE (202) 616-9514 and FEDERAL EXPRESS
Mr. Joe Murray
Civil Rights Analyst
U. S. Department of Justice
Chief, Voting Section
Civil. Rights Division
Room 7259-NWB
Department of Justice
1800 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 2.0006
RE: Justice Department Submission
Dear Mr. Murray:
2004 Election
MARK T SOKOLOW
CITY ATTORNEY
As for the 2009 Election returns, attached are the
cover pages for Ordinance No.- 09-28. There were 3 persons
that ran for Position 7, Louis P. May, Linda Turner Spears,
and Debris "Bobbie" Prince.. The total votes for each
person are as delineated as follows:
Louis P. May 1,765
Linda Turner Spears 1,828
Deb ris "Bobbie" Prince 2,196
r
Rs for Position 8, the only candidate that ran for this
positicn in 2-009 was Michael Shane Sinegal.
z. mu rra y_submissiou.lt r2
P(1 BOY, 10P.o
2002 Election
As for the
cover pages for
candidates that
Allen and Micha
each person are
2002 Election returns, attached are the
Ordinance No. 02-21. There were 2
ran for Position No. 8, Robert E. .(Bob)
=_1 "Shane" Sinegal. The total votes for
as delineated as follows:
Robert. E. (Bob) A11en 2,317
Michael "Shane" Sinegal 2,980
As for Position 7, the only candidate that ran for the
position in 2002 was Rose Mitchell Chaisson.
2000 Election
As for the 2000 Election returns, attached are the
cover pages for Ordinance No. 00-29. There were 3 persons
that ran for Positions 8, Robert E. (Bob) A11en, Edna
Gonzalez, and Michael Shane Sineaa].. The total votes for
each candidate are as delineated as follo~,-s:
Robert E. (Bob) Allen 2,289..
Edna Gonzalez 300
Michael Shane Sinegal 1,812
I kill federal express a certified cony of each one of '
these ordinances for your records. I am attaching the
final tally totals for these positions on the fax copy. If
you need any additional information, please contact this
office.
Sincerely,
' `~--v~ ~ •~~ E2• •~/
Mark T. Sokolow
City Attorney
MTS:gt
Attachments
i. mu rxay submission.l[r2
OSCAt; G. ORTIZ, MAYOR
BONNIE H. THOMPSON, MAYOR PRO-TEM
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
WILLIE.LEWIS, JR. C/
FELIX A. BARKER
THOMAS J. HENDERSON
MARTIN FLOOD C
JOHN BEARD, JR.
DELORIS PRINCE
MICHAEL"SHANE"SIN EGAL
April 9, 2006
VIA FACSIMILE (202) 616-9514
Mr. Joe Murray
Civil Rights Analyst
RE: Justice Department Submission
Dear Mr. Murray:
MARK T. SOKOLOW
CITY ATTORNEY
In the February 16, 2006 submission, we discussed the
declaratory judgment action that was filed by the City of
Port Arthur against the United States in the District of
Columbia. ~This•matter was appealed to the Supreme Court of
the United States. It was decided in December 1982.
Attached is a copy thereof. As you requested, I am asking
the City Secretary's Office to produce a copy of the
election returns for Positions 7 and 8 for the years 2000,
2002, and 2009- As soon as°this information is available,
I will forward it to you. I am also attaching a copy of
the City Secretary's certification as to .t he candidates for
the May 13, 2006 Council Election.
Sincerely,
Mark T. Sokolow
City Attorney
MTS:gt
Attachments
z. murray submissiom.l is
P.O. BOX 1089 PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS 77641-1089 409!983-812fi FAX 409/983-8124
OSCAR G. ORTIZ,•MAYOR
RONNIE H. THOMPSON, MAYOR PRO-TEM
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
WILLIELEWIS,JR.
FELIX A. BARKER
THOMAS J.HENDERSON
MARTIN FLOOD
JOHN BEARD. JR..
DELORIS PRINCE.
MICHAEL"SHANE"SINEGAL
City Of
C
ort arthu
,/
Texas
CERTIFICATION
STEPHEN FITZGIBBONS
CITY MANAGER
EVANGELINE NAN"GREEN
CITY SECRETARY
MARK T. SOKOLOW
CITY ATTORNEY
This is to certify that the follo~virig candidates have duly filed with this office to be placed
on the Ballot of the City of Port Arthur General and Special Election to be held on May 13, 2006:
FOR COUNCILMEMBER DISTRICT Jr
John Beard, Jr. 1145 Grannis Avenue
FOR COUNCILMEMBER DISTRICT F)
Robert E. "Bob" Williamson
Kerry "Twin" Thomas
FOR COUNCILMEMBER POSITION 7
4608 Alamosa
3010 34`" Street
Deloris "Bobbie" Prince
Clara Dell Jones
2645 33rd Street
3812 Lakeshore Drive
FOR COUNCILMEMBER POSITION H
Michael Shane Sinegal 313934`" Street
Maria Block 3435 Woodrow
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE this 24th day of March 2006.
Evangel' e Green City Secretary
(SEAL)
P.O. BOX 1089 • PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS 77fi47-1089 •~ 409/983-8715 FAX 409/983-8291
Sear6h - 669 Results -PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS
Source: Leal > ! ... /> TX Federal & State Cases, Combined
Terms: port arthur, texas (Edit Search-~ SuccestTenns for My Search)
i'Select for FOCUST^+ or Delivery
r
459 U.S. 159, *; 103 5. Ct. 530, **;
74 L. Ed. 2d 334, * * *; 1982 U. S. LEXIS 171
CITY OF PORT ARTHUR,.TEXAS v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
No. 81-708
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Page 1 of 17
459 U.S. 159; 103 S. Ct. 530; 74 L. Ed. 2d 334; 1982 U.S. LEXIS 171; S1 U.S.L.W.
4033
October 6, 1982, Argued
December 13, 1982, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY:
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL. POSTURE: After being denied preclearance under § 5 of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965, 42 U. S.C.S. 6 1973c, of its modified electoral plan, appellant
sued for a declaratory judgment that its plan did not have the purpose or effect of
denying the right to vote on account of race within the terms of § 5. The U.S.
District Court, District of Columbia, entered a judgment that the plan was entitled
to clearance, subject to certain conditions. The city appealed.
OVERVIEW: The city, consolidated with two neighboring cities, which were
predominately Caucasian. Six months later, it annexed another area. Due to the
expansions, the percentage of the African American population in the city
decreased. Before the expansions, the city was governed by aseven-member
council. After the consolidations, the city adopted anine-member electoral plan, .
and. later, a 4-4-1 plan. After preclearance of those plans was denied, the city
submitted a 4-3-2 plan to the district court for approval. Under that plan, the city
would be divided into four single-member districts, one district, that was comprised
of two districts, would elect another member; as would another district, which was
also comprised of two districts; three additional members would be elected at
large. On appeal, the court held that the. district court properly conditioned its
approval of the city's plan on the elimination of the majority-vote requirement with
respect to the two non-mayoral at-large candidates. In light of the fact that the 4-
3-2 plan undervalued to some extent the political strength of the African American
community, the conditions imposed would serve to neutralize such adverse effect.
/retrieve?_m=d I (37821 d33204737272010f9d20f2a0&docnum=4&_fmtstr=FULL&_:1 /23/2006
Page 2 of 17
Sear6h - 669 Results -PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the district court's judgment.
CORE TERMS: at-large, election, annexation, majority-vote, electoral, preclearance,
elected, seat, enlarged, discriminatory, voting age, voting, consolidation, single-
member, black community, Voting Rights Act, right to vote, candidate, borders, voting
strength, adverse. impact, plurality, proportional representation,"declaratory judgment,
qualification, prerequisite, neutralize, nonmayoral, abridging, voters
LexisNexis(R) Headnotes ~ Hide Headnotes
i•
r n r r itionat Law > Civil Riohts Enforcement > Votino Riohts > Preclearance •~s
HNS+Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 439, as amended, 4Z
U S C 5 § 1973[, requires that when a state or political subdivision covered
by the Act adopts or seeks to administer any change in its standards,
practices, or procedures with respect to voting, it must obtain a preclearance
either from the Attorney General of the United States or by obtaining a
declaratory judgment from the District Court for the District of Columbia that
'the proposed change has neither the purpose nor the effect of denying or
abridging the right to vote on account of race. more uke This Headnote ~
~hEDdf~~Rg4~rSS By Hed_dnote
Governments > Local Governments > Boundaries ~~~!
~~
Governments > L4C.dl Gov_ernmen[s > Elections _
C9nstiSVl9~~l_Law > Crvd Righ[s_EnforcQment > Voting_Rghts > Preclearance f,~;
Hrrz±Changes in the boundary lines of a city by annexations that enlarge the
number of eligible voters are events covered by § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of
1965; 79 Stat. 439, as amended, 4Z U S_C 5_~_1973c. _M. ore Like_7his Headnote ~
sh ardize' Restrict By Headnote .
Con itutional Law > Civil Rights Enforcement > Votin Rights > Preclearance ~.~y
xNSy see § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 4Z U S.C S. 5
1973[. SheAardize Restrict By Headnote
r rtutional Law > ivil Riohts Enforcement > Vo6na Riau > P~~earance f~~l
HNa±The Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U 5 C S 5 1973[, assigns primary
responsibility to the District Court to determine whether a change in voting
procedures violates § S. Preclearance by the Attorney General of the United
States may obviate a court suit, but where the Attorney General acts in the
capacity of a litigant by joining the city in submitting a plan for the court's
consideration, neither the Attorney General, the city; nor both of them
together can dictate the court's conclusion as to the acceptability of the plan
Under § 5.- More Like This Headnote ~ Sheoardize~ Restrict ev Headnote
Governments > L=oS:~CzoY~Lnmer~.ts > Boundaries ~~
r~~ctitctional law > Civil Riohts Enfor~pl~DS > VotinaBi9hS5 > Pr~S-f2Ilr3Se
/retrieve7. m=dif37821d33204737272010f9d20f2a0&docnum=4&_fmtstt=FULL&_1/23/2006
Seazih - 669 Results -PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS
Page 3 of 17
nnsagnnexations by a city are subject to preclearance under § 5 the Voting Rights
Act of 1965, 42 U.S C.S. 6 1973c, because increasing the number of eligible
voters dilutes the weight of the votes of those to whom the franchise was
limited before the annexation and because the right to vote may be denied by
dilution or debasement just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the
franchise. Section 5 was not intended to forbid all expansions of municipal
borders that could be said to have diluted the voting power of particular
groups in the community. The annexation can nevertheless be approved but
only on the condition that modifications in the electoral plan calculated to
neutralize to the. extent possible any adverse effect upon the political
participation. of black voters are adopted. More ~~ke Tns Headnote ~
She°a diP~ Restrict By Headnote .
. Hide Lawyers' Edition Disolav
DECISION: District Court's conclusion that city's electoral plan following expansion of
city cquld not be approved under 5 of Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 USCS 1973c1
without elimination of majority vote requirement for two at-large city council seats,
held not to be in error.
SUMMARY: A city, after having consolidated with two neighboring cities and having
annexed an additional incorporated area, submitted jointly with the United States
Attorney General an electoral plan to the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia for a declaratory judgment approving the plan under 5 of the Voting Rights
Act of 1965 (42 USCS 1973c1 as not having the purpose or effect of denying or
abridging the right to vote on account of race. The plan provided for the election to
the city council of nine members who were required to be elected by a majority vote.
Under the submitted plan, four members would be elected from four single-member
districts, two members-would be elected from two larger districts, each comprised of
two of the smaller districts, and three members would be elected at-large, one each
residing in one of the .two larger districts, and the third at-large seat to be occupied by
the mayor with no residency requirement. One-third of the council seats were to be
elected from black majority districts, with blacks comprising 40.56% of the population
of the enlarged city, and 36% of the voting age population. The District Court held
that the plan could not be approved under 5 of the Act because it insufficiently
neutralized the adverse impact upon minority voting strength that resulted from the
expansion of the city's borders, concluding that it was necessary in order for the plan
to be approved that the. majority vote requirement be eliminated for the two non-
mayoral at-large council seats.
On direct appeal, the United States Supreme Court affirmed. In an opinion by White,
J., joined by Burger, Ch. J., and Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens, J]., it was
held that the District Court did not err in concluding that the electoral plan could not
be approved because it did not sufficiently neutralize the adverse impact on minority
voting strength, and in concluding that it was necessary to eliminate the majority vote
requirement in order for the plan to be approved, since (1) reasonable-minds could
differ on the political strength of the black community, and the Supreme Court should
not rush to overturn the judgment of the District Court, as it was sitting as a court of
equity seeking to devise a remedy, (2) the city's plan undervalued to some extent the
political strength of the black community, and the elimination of the majority vote
requirement would not overvalue black voting strength, and might enhance the
chances of black candidates to be elected to the two at-large seats, but not guarantee
f37821 d33204737272010f9d20f2a0&docnum=4&_fmtstr-FULL&_ 1 /23/2006
Search - 669 Results -PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS
Page 4 of 17
it, and (3) the elimination of the majority vote requirement would provide a
reasonable hedge against the possibility that the city's plan was purposefully
discriminatory, in light of the fact that two previous plans submitted by the city had
been found by the District Court to have a discriminatory purpose.
Powell, ]., joined by Rehnquist and O'Connor, JJ., dissented, expressing the view that
(1) the. plan, by definition, afforded blacks representation reasonably equivalent to
their political strength in the enlarged community, (?) the theory that political
strength should be enhanced, rather than preserved, was a new doctrine that had
never been embraced by Congress, and moreover, the District Court should not be
viewed.as a court of equity able to-use standardless discretion in imposing
requirements in addition to proportional representation, and (3) the city's
discriminatory purpose in prior electoral plans should have no bearing on the
possibility that the present plan had such a purpose.
LAWYERS' EDITION HEADNOTES:
[***LEdHNi]
• RIGHTS §5.1
city's consolidation and annexation of land -- effect of electoral plan on minority
voting power -- validity under Voting Rights Act --
HeadnOte: [lA]LEdHN(lA)i[1B]LEdHN(IB)y
A United States District Court is not in error in concluding that a city's electoral plan--
whereby the city council, to be elected by a majority vote, would consist of four ,
members elected from four single-member districts, two rrTembers from two districts
each comprised of two of the smaller single-member districts, and three members
elected at large, one each residing in one of the,two larger districts, and the third at-
large. seat to be occupied by the mayor with no residency requirement--could not be
approved under 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 USCS 1973c). as not having the
purpose or effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, because
it insufficiently neutralized the adverse impact upon minority voting strength that
resulted from the expansion of the city's borders by two consolidations and an
annexation, and in concluding that for the plan to be sufficient it was necessary to
eliminate the majority vote requirement .for the two non-mayoral at-large council
positions, where (1) reasonable minds could differ on the political strength of the
black minority in the enlarged city, and the Supreme Court should not rush to
overturn the District Court's judgment, since the District Court was sitting as a court
of equity seeking to devise a remedy, (2) the city's plan undervalued the political
strength of the black community, the city's plan providing for one-third of the council
seats to be elected from black majority districts, but with blacks comprising 40.56% of
the population of the enlarged city and 35°/o of the voting age population, and the
elimination of the majority vote requirement would not overvalue black voting.
strength, a.nd might enhance the chances of black candidates to be elected to the two
at-large seats, but not guarantee it, and (3) the elimination of the majority vote
requirement is a reasonable hedge against the possibility that the city's plan contained
a purposefully discriminatory element, in light of the fact that the two previous plans
submitted by the city had been found by the District Court to have a discriminatory
purpose. (Powell, Rehnquist, and O'Connor, JJ., dissented from this holding.)
[***LEdHN2]
• RIGHTS 65.1
electoral plan submitted jointly by city and Attorney General -- approval by District
/retrieve? m=d1£i7821d33204737272010fiJd20f2a0&docnum~&_fmtstr-FULL&_1/23/2006
Seazoh - 669 Results -PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS Page 5 of 17
Court under Voting Rights Act --
Headnote:[2A]cEdxxfza~±[28]cedxx(ze~y
A United States District Court is not required under S of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
(42 USCS 1973c1 to approve an electoral plan jointly submitted. by the city and the
Attorney General, where although preclearance of a plan by the Attorney General may
obviate a court suit, the Act assigns primary responsibility.to the District Court to
determine whether a change in voting procedures violates 5, and the Attorney General
is acting in the capacity of a litigant in joining with the city in submitting a plan to the
court for consideration.
SYLLABUS: Under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a covered State or political
subdivision, such as appellant city of Port Arthur, must obtain federal preclearance of
a change in its voting practices or procedures either from the Attorney General or by
obtaining a declaratory judgment from the District Court for the District of Columbia
that the proposed change has' neither the purpose nor the effect of denying the right
to vote on account of race. In 1977 and 1978,'Port Arthur was consolidated with two
neighboring cities and annexed an incorporated area, with the result that the
percentage of the black population within Port Arthur's borders decreased from
45.21% to 40.56%. Appellant ultimately filed a § S suit in the District Court, seeking
approval of the cons posed expansion of its
City Council from see i been previously
elected at large by rt ter the rejection of
earlier electoral plan ~tion of councilmen
from four single-mer majorities; election of
two members from t of two of the four
single-member distri ;and at-large election
of two other member iayor. All Council seats
would be governed b none of the candidates
received a majority c the expansion of Port
Arthur's borders coul riminatory in purpose,
the District Court hel wed under § 5
because it insufficien inority voting strength
that resulted from th rt if the plan were
modified to eliminate ct to the two
nonmayoral, at-large e two seats to be made
by a plurality vote, tl d and would offer its
approval.
Held: The District Court did not exceed its authority in conditioning clearance of the
electoral .plan on the elimination of the majority-vote requirement. Pp. 165-168.
(a) Section 5 does not forbid all expansion of municipal borders that dilute the voting
power of particular groups in the community. However, such an expansion can be
approved only if modifications in the electoral plan, calculated to neutralize to the
extent possible any adverse effect on the political participation of minority groups, are
adopted. Pp. 165-166.
(b) The District Court did not err in holding. that the majority-vote requirement as to
the nonmayoral, at-large council seats must be eliminated in order to sufficiently
dispel the impact of Port Arthur's expansion on the relative political. strength of the
black community. Whether the plan adequately reflected black political strength in the.
enlarged city is not an issue that is determinable with mathematical precision. Since
/rerrieve? m=dif37821d3 3 2047 3 72720 1 0f9d20f2a0&docnum=4&_frntstt=FULL&_1/23/2006
Search - 669 Results -PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS Page 6 of i7
the plan undervalued to some extent the political strength of the black community,
eliminating the majority-vote requirement was an understandable adjustment. And,
even if the electoral scheme might otherwise be said to reflect the political strength of
the minority community, elimination of the majority-vote element was a reasonable
hedge against the possibility that the scheme contained a purposefully discriminatory
element. Pp. 166-168.
non the briefs was
COUNSEL: Robert Q. Ke
James Douglas Welch.
~ ief for the United
Carter G. Phillips argued ds, Deputy
States were Solicitor Gene z. Elizabeth K.
Solicitor General Wallace, =lizabeth C. Petit,
Julian, Michael M. Daniel,
and Don Floyd filed a briel
JUDGES: WHITE, J., deliv~ GER, C. J.,-and
L, J., filed a
BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLf post, p. 169.
dissenting opinion, in whit
OPINIONBY: WHTTE
OPINION: [*160] [*** i the opinion of
the Court.
[***LEdHR1A] [lA]~EdHR(ZAJ?HNI.~c/eCCIOn 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79
Stat. 439, as amended, 42 U S C 4 1973c, requires that when a State or [*161]
political subdivision covered by-the Act nl adopts or seeks to administer any change
in its standards, practices, or procedures with respect to voting, it must obtain a
preclearance either from the Attorney General of the United States or by obtaining a
declaratory judgment from the District Court for the District of Columbia that the
proposed change has neither the purpose nor the effect of denying or abridging the
right to vote on account of race. n2 Perkins v Matthews, 400 U 5 379 (19711,. held
that HNrchanges in the boundary lines of a city by annexations that enlarge
[***339] the number of eligible voters are events covered by § 5. The question in
this case is whether the. District Court for the District of Columbia correctly [*162]
held that the electoral plan for the Port Arthur, Tex., City Council could not be
approved under § 5 because it insufficiently neutralized the adverse impact upon
minority voting strength that resulted from the expansion of the city's borders by two
consolidations and an annexation. ,
-Footnotes---------------
nl It is undisputed-that the city of Port Arthur is a political subdivision to which § S is
applicable. See 28 CFR, p. 461, Appendix (1982).
n25ectionS, asset forth in 42 U. 5. C_~1973c in relevant part provides as follows:
HN.3t"Whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to which the prohibitions
set forth in section 19731i(a) of this title based upon determinations made under the
first sentence of section 1973b(b) of this title are in effect shall enact or seek to
m=d 1 (37821 d33204737272010f;Jd20f2a0&docnum=4&_frntstrFULL.&_ 1 /23/2006
Sean;h - 669 Results -PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS
Page 7 of 17
administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or
procedure with respect to voting different from that in fdree or effect ...such State or
subdivision may institute an action in the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that such qualification, prerequisite, standard,.
practice, or procedure does not have the purpose and will not' have the effect of
denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention
of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b(f)(2) of this title, and unless and until the
court enters such judgment no person shall be denied the right to vote for failure to
comply with such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure:
Provided, That such qualification, prerequisite; standard, practice, or procedure may
be enforced without such proceeding if the qualification, prerequisite, standard,
practice, or procedure has been submitted by the chief legal officer or other
appropriate official of such State or subdivision to the Attorney General and the
Attorney General has not interposed an objection within sixty days after such
submission, or upon good cause shown, to facilitate an expedited approval within sixty
days after such submission, the Attorney General has affirmatively indicated that such
objection will not be made."
------------EndFOOtnotes--------------
Ih December 1977, the city of Port Arthur, Tex., consolidated with the neighboring
cities of Pear Ridge and Lake View. Six months later, the city annexed Sabine Pass, an
incorporated area. As a result of these expansions of the city's borders, the percentage
of the black population in Port Arthur decreased from 45:21% to 40.56%. Blacks of
voting age constituted 35% of the population of the enlarged city. n3
-------------Footnotes---------------
n3 The preannexation and postannexation percentages are based on the 1980 census.
The figure for the percentage of blacks in the voting age population is an estimate,
which the District Court derived by extrapolating from the 1970 census data. The
1970 census showed that at that time 34.6% of the voting age population was black
while 40.01% of the general population was black. The District Court itself noted the
dangers of extrapolation, but explained that both parties had suggested the procedure
for determining the percentage of the current. voting age population that is black. Port
Arthur also has a Hispanic community, which comprises 6.30% of the enlarged city's
population.
------------End Footnotes--------------
[**533] Prior to the expansions, the city was governed by aseven-member Council,
including a mayor, each member being elected at large by majority vote. Each
member except the mayor was required to reside in a specific district of the city.
Members were elected for staggered terms. Following the two consolidations, the City
Council passed an ordinance adding an eighth member to the Council, while retaining
the at-large system with residency requirements. After the annexation of Sabine Pass,
the city further proposed that the Council be expanded to nine members, with at-large
elections as before. The two consolidations and the annexation, together with the
proposed changes in the governing system, were submitted to the Attorney General
/retrieve? m=d1f37821d33204737272010f9d20fLa0&docnum=4&_fintstr-FULL&_I/23/2006
Seazch - 669 Results -PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS
Page 8 of 17
for preclearance [*163] pursuant to § 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The Attorney
General refused preclearance, suggesting, however, that he would reconsider if the
Council members were elected from fairly drawn single-member districts.
As § 5 permitted it to do, the city then filed suit in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia seeking a declaratory judgment that the expansions and the
nine-member plan did not have the purpose or effect of denying or abridging the right
to vote on account of color or race within the meaning of § 5. While that suit was
pending, the city approved by referendum the "4-4-1" plan, calling for four members
to be elected from single-member districts, four to be elected at large from residency
districts identical to the single-member districts, and. the ninth member, the mayor, to
be elected at large without any residency requirement. n4 That plan, like the previous
plans, required [***340] a majority vote to elect each Council member. The city
then moved to amend its complaint so as to seek a declaratory judgment as to the
legality of the 4-4-1 plan.
--------------Footnotes-------- ------
n4 The United States unsuccessfully sought to enjoin the referendum election before a
three-judge court in the Eastern District of Texas. United States v. City of Port Arthur,
No. B-80-216-CA (Sept. 5, 1980).
------------End Footnotes------------'-
The District Court concluded that because there were legitimate purposes behind the
annexation and the consolidations, those actions, under Citv of Richmond v United
States 422 U.S. 358 (1975),. could not be denied preclearance as discriminatory in
purpose. 517 F.SuoD 987 (1981). Because the expansions had substantially reduced
the relative political strength of the black population, however, it was necessary for
preclearance that the postexpansion electoral system be found to satisfy the
requirements of § 5. The District Court held that neither the first nine-member plan
nor the 4-4-1 plan measured up, not only because each was adopted with a
,discriminatory purpose, but also because in the context of the severe racial bloc voting
characteristic of the recent past in the city neither plan adequately reflected [*164]
the minority's potential political strength in the enlarged community as required under
City of Rome v United States 446 U 5 156 (1980 • C~ of Richmond v. United.
States, supra: and CCU of Petersburg v Uriited States, 354 F.Suo~ 1021 (DC 1972)
summarily affd, 410 U.S 962 (19731.
Soon after this decision, the city and the United States jointly submitted to the court
for approval the "4-2-3" electoral plan. Under this scheme, the city would be divided
into four single-member districts, Districts 1 through 4. District 5, comprising Districts
1 and 4 would elect another member, as would District 6, which combined Districts'2
and 3. Three additional members would be elected at large, one each from Districts 5
and 6, the third at-large seat to be occupied by the mayor and to [**534] have no
residency requirement. All Council seats would be governed by the majority-vote rule,
that is, runoffs-would be required if none of the candidates voted on received a
majority of the votes cast. Blacks constituted a majority in Districts 1 and. 4, 79% and.
62:78% respectively, as well. as a 70.83% majority of the fifth district combining the
two majority black districts. The sixth district was 10.98% black. Although the United
States expressed reservations about the at-large and majority-vote features, its
position was that neither of these aspects of the plan warranted a denial of
/retrieve?
(37821 d33204737272010f9d20f2a0&docnum=4&_fmtstrFULL&_'1 /23/2006
Search - 669 Results -PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS Page 9 of 17
preclearance.
[***LEdHR2A] [2A]tedrrRfza)*After response to and oral argument upon the
submission, the District Court concluded "that hhe proposed plan insufficiently
neutralizes the adverse impact upon minority voting strength which resulted from the
expansion of Port Arthur's borders." App. 87a. The court added, however, that if the
plan were modified to eliminate the majority-vote requirement with respect to the two
nonmayoral, at-large candidates, and to permit election to these two seats to be made
by a plurality vote, the court "would consider the defect remedied and offer our
approval." Id., at 87a-88a. This appeal followed, the basic submission being that
under § 5 and the controlling cases the District Court exceeded its authority in
[*165] conditioning clearance of the 4-2-3 plan. on the elimination of the majority-
vote [***341] requirement. n5 We noted probable jurisdiction. 4ss U.S. 917
1982
[***LEdHR2B] [2B]tedxa/ze)*
--------------Footnotes---------------
ns The city argues that the District Court was required to approve a plan jointly
submitted by the city and the Attorney General. HN4*Yhe Voting Rights Act, however,
assigns primary responsibility to the District Court to determine whether a change in
voting procedures violates § S. Preclearance by the Attorney General may obviate a
court suit, but here the Attorney General was.acting in the capacity of a litigant when
he joined the city in submitting a plan for the court's consideration. In that posture,
neither the Attorney General, the city, nor both of them together could dictate the
court's conclusion as to the acceptability of the plan under § 5.
_____---_--End Footnotes--------------.
II
Perkins v Matthews 400 U 5 '379 (1971) held that xrvs*annexations by a city are
subject to § 5 preclearance because increasing the number of eligible voters dilutes
the weight of the votes of those to whom the franchise was limited- before the
annexation and because the right to vote may be denied by dilution or debasement
just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the franchise. It soon became clear,
however, that § s was not intended to forbid all expansions of municipal borders that
could be said to have diluted the voting power of particular groups in the community.
In City of Petersburg v United States suora, the annexation of an area with a heavy
white majority resulted in reducing the black community from majority to minority
status. The District Court held that.the annexation could nevertheless be approved but'
"only on the condition that modifications [in the electoral plan] calculated to neutralize
to the extent possible any adverse effect upon the political participation of black
voters are adopted, i. e., that the [city] shift-from an at-large to a ward system of
electing its city councilmen." 354 F sUDP at 1031. We affirmed summarily. 410 U.S,
962 (19731. ,
Later, in City ^f po-ti~^^^d v United States suora, we expressly reaffirmed
Petersburg, recognizing that the Petersburg annexation enhanced the power of the
white majority to [*166] exclude Negroes from the city council but stating that such
.../retrieve? m=d1f37821d33204737272010flJd20f2a0&docnum=4&_fintstc=FULL&._1/23/2006
Search - 669 Results -PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS
Page 10 of 17
a consequence "would be satisfactorily obviated if at-large elections were replaced by
award system of choosing councilmen." 422 U.S._ta_t 370• It was ourview that a fairly
designed ward. plan "would not only prevent the total exclusion of Negroes from
membership on the council but_would afford them representation reasonably
equivalent to their political strength in the enlarged community." Ibid. We applied
these principles in City of Richmond. There, the annexation of a heavily white area
reduced the black population [**535] of the city from 52% to 42%, and the
electoral proposal submitted for preclearance replaced the prior system of at-large _.,
elections with asingle-member plan under which blacks would be in a substantial
majority in four of the nine councilmanic districts. We held that as long as the ward
system fairly reflected the strength of the Negro community as it existed after the
annexation, preclearance under § 5 should be granted. Under such a-plan, "Negro
power in the new city [would not be] undervalued, and Negroes [would]**342 not
underrepresented on the council." Id.. at 371_ The annexation could [ ]
therefore, be said to have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on
account of race within the meaning of § 5.
In the case before us, Port Arthur was a party to two consolidations and an
annexation. Because the areas taken into the city were predominantly white, the
relative percentage of blacks in the enlarged city was substantially less than it was
before the expansions. The District Court refused preclearance because in its view the
postexpansion electoral system did not sufficiently dispel the adverse impact of the
expansions on the relative. political strength of the black community in Port Arthur.
The city submits that this judgment was in error under Petersburg and Richmond.
(***LEdHR18] [1B]LEatralis)rRichmond, however, involved a fairly drawn,single-
member district system that adequately reflected the political strength of the black
community in the enlarged city. The [*167] plan was consequently an acceptable
response to the annexation's adverse impact on minority voting potential. It does not
necessarily follow that the mixed single-member and at-large system at issue in this
case sufficiently dispelled the impact of Port Arthur's expansions on the relative
political strength of the black community. The District Court concluded that although
the 4-2-3 system provided a black majority in three councilmanic districts, it was
necessary also to eliminate the majority-vote requirement with respect to the two
nonmayoral at-large council positions. For several reasons, we cannot say that the
District Court erred in this respect.
First, whether the 4-2-3 plan adequately reflected the political strength of the black
minority in the enlarged city is not an issue that is determinable with mathematical
precision. Because reasonable minds could differ on the question and because the
District Court was sitting as a court of equity seeking to devise a remedy for what
otherwise might be a statutory violation, we should not rush to overturn its judgment..
Cf. Swann v Charlotte Mecklenburo Board of Education 402 U 5 1 15 (19711.
Second, the 4-2-3 plan undervalued to some extent the political strength of the black
community: one-third of the Council seats was to be elected from black majority
districts, but blacks constituted 40.56% of the population of the enlarged city and
35% of the voting age population. In light of this fact, eliminating the majority-vote
requirement was an understandable adjustment. As the District Court well understood,
the majority-vote rule, which forbade election by a plurality, would always require the
black candidate in an at-large election, if he survived the initial round, to run against
one white candidate. In the context of racial bloc voting prevalent in Port Arthur, the
rule would permanently foreclose a black candidate from being elected to an at-large
:../retrieve? m=dif37821d33204737272010P7d20f2a0&docnum~&_frntstr-FULL&_1/23/2006
Search - 669 Results -PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS
Page 11 of 17
seat. Removal of the requirement, on the other hand, might enhance the chances of
blacks to be elected to the two at-large. [*168] seats affected by the District Court's
conditional order but surely would not guarantee that result. Only if there were two or
more white candidates running in a district would a black have any chance of winning
election under a plurality system. We cannot say that insisting on eliminating the
majority-vote rule in the two at-large [***343] districts would either overvalue
black voting strength in Port Arthur or be inconsistent with Richmond.
[**536] Third, even if the 4-2-3 electoral scheme might otherwise be said to reflect
the political strength of the minority community, the plan. would nevertheless be
invalid if adopted for racially discriminatory purposes, i. e., if the majority-vote
requirement in the two at-large districts had been imposed for the purpose of
excluding blacks from any realistic opportunity to represent those districts or to
exercise any influence on Council members elected to those positions. City of
Richmond v United States, 422 U.S. at 378-379. The District Court made no finding
that the 4-2-3 plan was tainted by an impermissible purpose; but it had found that
the-two preceding plans, the first nine-member plan and the.4-4-1 plan, had been
adopted for the illicit purpose of preventing black candidates from winning election.
The court had also found that the majority-vote requirement was a major means of
effectuating this discriminatory end. When it was then presented with the 4-2-3 plan
retaining the requirement for the two nonmayoral at-large seats, the Court
conditioned approval on elimiriating the majority-vote element. It seems to us that in
light of the prior findings of discriminatory purpose such action was a reasonable
hedge against the possibility that the 4-2-3 scheme contained a purposefully
discriminatory element. On balance, we cannot fault the judgment of the District
Court.
The judgment of the District Court is accordingly
Affirmed.
DISSENTBY:. POWELL
DISSENT: [*169] JUSTICE POWELL, with whom JUSTICE REHNQUIST and JUSTICE
O'CONNOR join, dissenting.
The Court affirms the District Court's order, concluding that although the 4-2-3 plan
ensures proportional representation for the black voting age population, a district
court nevertheless is free under § 5 -- in the exercise of a newly perceived equitable
jurisdiction -- to require a city to "enhance" the chances of increased minority
representation on a city's governing body. In this case, the perceived enhancement
would be that a plurality, ratherthan a majority election requirement, would give
black citizens a better chance of capturing -- in addition to the three district seats
assured them -- the two at-large seats. Ante , at 167-168. nl Because the Court's
decision is irreconcilable with City of Richmond v United States 422 U S 358 (1975)t
and authorizes a standardless equitable jurisdiction in district courts, I dissent.
--------------Footnotes---------------
nl The Court has recognized that amajority-vote requirement in at-large elections,
unless adopted as a change for discriminatory purposes, is a valid and long=accepted
practice "that is followed by literally thousands of municipalities and other local
governmental units throughout the Nation." See Citv of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U S 55
.../retrieve? m~1f37821d3320473727201Of9d20f2a0&docnum=4&_fintstr-FULL&_1/23/2006
Page 12 of 17
Search - 669 Results -PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS
60 1 80 (plurality opinion).
______---_--End Footnotes--------------
In City of Richmond, the city annexed territory reducing the percentage [***344] of
the city's black population from 52% to 42%. After the Attorney General refused to
preclear submitted election plans, he and the city came to an agreement and jointly
submitted a plan for approval to the District Court for the District of Columbia. The
District Court rejected this plan, because the city had failed to "[minimize] the dilution
of black voting power to the greatest possible extent." Id., at 367. This Court, in an
opinion by JUSTICE WHITE, vacated the District Court's order; holding that a district
court must accept e new electoral plan for the enlarged municipality as long as it
"fairly reflects the strength of the Negro community as it exists after the annexation"
and [*170] "would afford [it] representation reasonably equivalent to [its] political
strength in the enlarged community." Id., at 370-371. See City of Rome v United
States 446 U S. 156, 187 X1980), aff'g 472 F Suomi 221 245 (DC 1979);_ City of
Rome supra at 188 [**537] (BLACKMUN, J., concurring); United Jewish
Oroanizationsv Carev 430 U 5 144 160 (1977) (opinion of WHITE, J.); Seer v.
United States, 425 U 5 130 139 n 11 11976)_ In dissent, JUSTICE BRENNAN stated
that he would find the dilutive effect of an annexation cured only by an election plan
"calculated to neutralize to the extent possible any adverse effect upon the political
participation of black voters." 422 U S. at 389.
In this case, the city expanded its boundaries by annexation and consolidation. n2
This resulted in reducing the percentage of its black population from 45.21% to
40.56%. The electoral plan for the enlarged city, submitted to the Attorney General
under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, was disapproved both by the Attorney
General and then by the District Court for the District of Columbia. Following
negotiations, the Attorney General and the city reached agreement [*171] that the
4-2-3 electoral plan -- at issue in this case -- complied with the requirements of the
Voting Rights Act. Accordingly, the plan was jointly submitted by the Attorney General
and the city to the District Court for its approval. Under this plan, the city's 35% black
voting age population was assured of 33% of the City Council positions, i, e., three of
nine members..
--------------Footnotes---------------
n2 The District Court acknowledged benefits for the entire population from
consolidation:
"Port Arthur ...was extremely interested in maintaining a population in excess of
50,000 so as to remain entitled as a matter of right to funds from federal agencies
including the Department of Housing and Urban Development ('HUD'). Were the
population to decrease below the 50,000 level, HUD would diminish the amount of the
direct grant by ohe-third each year; in the fourth year, the. City would have to
[compete] with other applicants for discretionary awards. Since 1975, ...there was
evidence that the municipal population was [declining towards] the 50,000 mark... .
Having already annexed all of the adjacent black communities, the City turned to Pear
Ridge, Lakeview and Grilling Park.
../retrieve? m=d1f37821d3320473727201Of9d20f2a0&docnum=4&_frntstrFULL.&_I/23/2006
Seatch - 669 Results -PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS
Page 13 of 17
..Although the City would be required to provide services to the new residents, it
was anticipated that the additional cost would be minimal and greatly outweighed by
the increased tax revenue.... Furthermore, Port Arthur hoped that the increased
visibility resulting from consolidation would attract new businesses and thereby create
new jobs." 517 F Suoo 987 999 (19811 (footnote omitted).
----
_______-----End Footnotes----------.
The District Court rejected the agreed upon plan in a brief order [***345] because,
in words reminiscent of JUSTICE BRENNAN's dissent in City of Richmond, it
"insufficiently neutralizes the adverse impact upon minority voting strength." App.
87a. The court added, however, that it would approve the plan were it modified "so as
to provide for the election of the two non-mayoral, at-large representatives by
plurality vote," ibid., a condition to approval that the Attorney General had expressly
considered and found not to be required by the Act.
I find the Court's decision in City of Richmond and in this case fundamentally
inconsistent, because the proportional representation assured by the 4-2-3 plan must,
by definition, "afford [blacks] representation reasonably equivalent to their political
strength in the enlarged community." 422 U.S. at 370-371. Cf. United Jewish
Ornanizations supra at 169 (BRENNAN, J., concurring in part) ("[The] very definition
of proportional representation precludes either underrepresentation or
overrepresentation ..."). Apparently in an effort to justify its decision, the Court
states that the agreed 4-2-3 plan "undervalued to some extent the political strength
of the black community." Ante, at 167. No support for this statement is cited, and
none is found in the record. n3 The District [*172] [**538] Court made no such
finding and the Government, in its submission to the District Court, expressly asserted
that the city's plan "would appear to provide the minority community with a fair
opportunity to obtain 'representation reasonably equivalent to their political strength
in the enlarged community.' Cit of Richmond v. United States 422 U.S. 358 370
1975 ." App. 79a-SOa. The black intervenors also agreed at the time of the
submission that "the plan does approach affording blacks representation [***3467 .
reasonably equivalent to their voting strength in the at-large community ...." Id., at
83a.
-----'--------Footnotes---------------
n3 In interim elections held in 1981, the city's electorate chose three black Council
members. In fact, the city notes that it is now governed by a Council consisting of four
blacks and five whites. Reply Brief for Appellant 6.
The Court seems to rely on two factors for its conclusion: a slight differential between
the percentage of black seats and the percentage of black voting age population; and
a larger differential between the percentage of black seats and the percentage of the
black population. There is a preference for voting age population statistics, see United
Jewish Organizations v Carev 430 U 5 144 164 n 23 (19771 (opinion of WHITE,
J. ), because they are more"probative" of the electoral potential of the minority
community," C~tv of Rome v United States 446 U S 156 186 n 22 (19801, than
population statistics. Even if the Court were to rely on population statistics here, this
Court's formulations reFlect the recognition that it would be unreasonable, if not
impossible, to require cities to devise voting plans that afford minorities
representation precise/y proportional to their political strength in the jurisdiction.
/retrieve? m=dif37821d33204737272010frJd20f2a0&docnum=4&_frntstt=FULL&_1/23/2006
Search - 669 Results -PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS
Page 14 of 17
Indeed, the Court has indicated that proportional representation would be found in
circumstances quite similar to those presented here. See Beer v United States. 4Z5
U 5 130 159 n. 19 (19761 (MARSHALL, J., dissenting) (approving
representation/voting age population differential of 6%).
Moreover, the Court's conclusion that the 4-2-3 plan will "permanently foreclose"
blacks from being elected to either of the at-large seats, ante, at 167, ignores the
dynamics of the region, to which the facts of this case attest. With 35% of the voting
age population composed of black citizens, it is politically naive to think that these
citizens will not have significant -- and indeed often decisive -- influence in the.
election of at-large Council members. The results in numerous state. and local
elections demonstrate the political power of such a.large and cohesive segment of the
electorate. See J. Wilkinson; Harry Byrd and'the Clianging Face of Virginia Politics,
1945-1966, p. 346 (1968) ("By the middle of the 1960's ...Negroes provided
balance-of-power ballots [in Virginia and] elsewhere in the South ...").
-----------End Footnotes--------------
II
Furthermore, the Court's decision finds no support in any prior decision of this Court.
The theory that political [*173] strength should be enhanced, rather than
preserved, is new doctrine. It is a view Congress has never embraced, and indeed one
that the 1982 extension of the Voting Rights Act fairly can be viewed as rejecting. n4
Moreover, although I do not question the power of a district court to disagree with the
Attorney General's construction of the Act, it does not follow that the District Court
was "sitting as a court of equity," ante, at 167, and had the power to require political
enhancement. We are interpreting and applying a statute that vests no such open-
ended jurisdiction in any court.
--------------Footnotes---------------
n4 Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982, Pub. L. 97-205, 96 Stat.
131, 42 U S C 1~ 973b (1982 ed.), states that a violation has been established if it
is shown, "based on the totality of circumstances," that the political processes "are not
equally open to [blacks]." The amendment expressly provides that "[the] extent to
which members of a protected class have been elected to office ... is one.
circumstance which may be considered ...." The Senate Committee Report stated:
"Electoral devices, including at-large elections, per se would not be subject to attack
under Section 2. They would only be vulnerable if, in the totality of circumstances,
they resulted in the denial of equal access to the electoral process. [The] presence of
minority elected officials is a recognized indicator of access to the process ...." 5.
Rep. No. 97-417, p. 16 (1982).
-----------End Footnotes----- --------
In the first six months of this year, the Department of Justice received approximately
8,709 applications for preclearance of voting changes under g 5, an .average of 66 per
working day. n5 Congress, with the approval of the President, has- recently reaffirmed
the authority of Department of Justice personnel to exercise this extensive control
/retrieve? m=dif37821d3320473727201-0f9d20f2a08idocnum=4&_fmtstc=FULL&_1/23/2006
Search - 669 Results -PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS
Page 15 of 17
over state and local po/itica/decisions. The sheer volume of applications for
preclearance makes imperative the prescribing of predictable standards. Proportional
representation, whatever its theoretical and practical limitations may be in a
[**539] nation with populations as diverse and mobile as that of the United States,
is at least an objective standard, and when it [*174] is found to exist in a § 5 case -
- whether deemed necessary under the Act or not -- it should be dispositive. The
Court today, however, finds for the first time a standardless equitable discretion in the
District Court for the District of Columbia to impose requirements in addition to _ -
proportional representation. This leaves the responsible authorities in the State and
communities under the Act -- as well as the Attorney General -- without guidance as
to the requirements of § 5.
--------------Footnotes---------------
n5 See U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Voting Rights Section, Number of
Changes Submitted under Section 5 and Reviewed by the Department of Justice, By
State and Year, 1965 -- June 30, 1982 (unpublished).
_____-------End Footnotes-------'------
III
The Court's discussion of discriminatory purpose as providing some support for the
District Court's "effects" determination is disquieting for a number of reasons. First, as
the Court notes, the District Court made no finding that the 4-2-3 plan was tainted by
an impermissible [***347] purpose. Second, the District Court expressly found that
no discriminatory motive prompted the city's annexation of the three jurisdictions
involved. 517 F Supp 987 1019-1021 lDC 19811.. Third, the factors that led the
District Court to conclude that the earlier 8-0-1 and 4-4-i plans had been adopted for
a discriminatory purpose have no bearing on the question whether the city was
similarly motivated when it adopted the 4-2-3 plan at a later time and pursuant to
good-faith negotiations with the Attorney General. Finally, the Government concedes
that purpose is not a factor in this case. n6 Indeed, the Court fails to explain -- nor
can it explain satisfactorily -- how a plan negotiated with and acceptable to the
Attorney General was adopted for a discriminatory purpose.
--------------Footnotes---------------
n6 The following exchange took place at oral argument:
"[The Court]: And may I get clear, is purpose still in this case at this level?
"[The Government]: Not in terms of the submission to this Court, no, Your Honor.
"[The Court]: So we consider only the effect?
"[The Government]: Yes, Your Honor. I don't believe that the district court's opinion or
order can fairly be read to cast any doubt oothe purpose of the plan as adopted." Tr.
of Oral Arg. 30.
m=d1f37821d33204737272010f9d20f2a0&docnum=4&_fmtstr=FULL&_ l/23/2006
Page 16 of 17
Search - 669 Results -PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS
___________-End Footnotes--------------
[*175] In my opinion, the city has shown that its 4-2-3 plan has satisfied fully § 5's
effect-and-purpose test and the standard adopted. in City of Richmond. We now should
demand no more. I would reverse the District Court's order.
REFERENCES: ~ Return To Full Text Opinion
Go to Suoreme Court Briefs ,
~ Go to Oral Argument Transcript
25 Am Jur 2d Elections 57
10 Federal Procedure, L Ed, Elections and Elective Franchise 28:13-28:127
8 Federal Procedural Forms, L Ed, Elections and Elective Franchise 25:11-25:49
9 Am Jur PI & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 8.2
US L Ed Digest, Civil Rights 5.1
L Ed Index to Annos, Elections
ALR Quick Index, Discrimination
Federal Quick Index, Civil Rights; Elections
Annotation References:
Requirements under 5 of Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 USCS 1973c) and
implementing regulations that state or political subdivisions changing voting
procedures seek federal approval. 70 L Ed 2d 915.
Racial discrimination in voting, and validity and cdnstruction of remedial legislation .
27 L Ed 2d 885.
Source: Lecal > / ... ! > TX Federal & State Cases, Combined -~~
Terms: port arthur, texas (Edit Search ~ Suygesl Terms for k~ Search)
View: Full .
DatelTime:~ Monday, January 23, 2006 - 12:00 PM EST
`Signal Legend:
-. Warning: Negative treatment is indicated
®- Questioned: Validity questioned by citing refs
- Caution: Possible negative treaiment
- Positive treatment is indicated
Q - Citing Refs. With Analysis Available
- Citation information available
` Click on any Shepard's signal to Shepardize®that case.
/retrieve? m=dif37821d33204737272010f9d20t2a0&docnum=4&_fmtstr-FULL&_1/23/2006
Search - 669 Results -PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS
Page 17 of 17
' About LexisN~xi~ I r w C'~nditions
~ LexisNexis`-° ['oovriaht n 2006 LexisNezis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All
rights reserved.
m=d 1(37821 d33204737272010fl~d20f2a0&docnum=4&_fmtstr-FULL&_ 1 /23/2006
OSCAR G. ORTIZ, MAYOR
RONNIE H. THOMPSON, MAYOR PRO-TEM
COUNCIL MEMBERS: - City of
WILLIE LEWIS, JR.
FELD( A. BARKER
THOMAS J. HENDERSON
MARTIN ELOOD ~ -
JOHN BEARD, JR. O r 1
DELORIS PRINCE
MICHAEL"SHANE"SINEGAL
rlhu
Tezas
FAX TRANSMI S S LOI~t
FAX NUMBER (409) 983-8124
F
Number of faxes pages, includinc cover sheet:- 20
DATE: April 4, 2006
TO: [§r. Joe Hurray, Civil Rights Analyst
FpX; .(202) 616-9519
gE; Justice Department Submission
E'ROM: City P.ttorney's Office
COML~NTS
MARK T. SOKOLOW
CITY ATTORNEY
The information contained .in this facsimile message is legally
privileged and information, ~+~hich is intended only for the use and
party named abo'ae. if the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,
dissemination, distributioouohavepreoeivednthist messagesagee~ror,
strictly prohibited. If Y
please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original
;message-to us at the address below via U. S. Postal Service. if
you have problems with this transmission, call TOIIya oz' Gwen
at (409) 983-8126. Thank you.
z.fas covet shee L
P0. BOX 1089 PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS 77641-1089 409/983-8126 FAX 409!983-8124
{`~ IE='=~'=;RGC ~ONF I ~'h1~T I Cit~l
~a;~a;zc~c5 1~:5FJ
to=ae~~ 9a~ siza
Dfi Il=
n, R-'I" i NF G 15 f FIJT STRT (ON I D hIODE FADES RF_SI_ILT -
CHLL RJG; ~P. OR ~6ifJ!-~
I_i 7' _-. ' T~56`_-JAB=~
Fll7. bc'•4 Ci~1
N~nRK ~ SOk:OUi~'+
Cltl";.;TORtiEY
f~ C,nF G CR71Z, ylA1'OR
ROtI tJ~~E H. TI10L'~'S>ON--tiAli!`f.R ~ %t.^,--T EYJI
CGirlgiL MEM9~H5.
cfl.~X n,. 6GF.KFR
'FiL'L?.0.~ J. HEYDE".<,011
ndPfliM FL000
(fc..OFI$ PRi`JCi.
MICHP.EL`S1+/;N O~' SINEGAt.
,~~9~~crtaelmw~~nurauas~'
F'Y~.li; :?dUldi3'Eft (e}09) y8g-812g
- ~ .Ludi;ig cover s eet'LO
Pun-ib~~- ~ ,...... N.
DATE: :g1-::.Ll t, ~OOe'
I~t .7~e P1urra:~y, Civil Rights Analyst
T0:
FAX: {2021 6:_(i-4'S:.?
J'ISC7.:_e ~~e'pa Lrr.2,~t S~.~brr~ission
RE: -
EXHIBIT ~~C"
U.S. Department of Justice
JKT:MSR:JEM:maf
DJ 166-012-3
2006.-1035
Civil Rights Division
Voting Secrian - NR'B.
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
April 24, 2006
Mr. Mark T. Sokolov
City Attomey
P.O. Box 1089
Port Arthur, Texas 77641-1089
APF; 2 ? ?C06
Dear Mr. Sokolov:
This refers to the polling place changes, a change in voting method, the dates selected for
additional early voting hom s, procedures for conductme the May 13, 2006, joint/special/general/
chat-[er/local option/referendum election and; if passed, the charter changes to increase the
compensation Cor the mayor and council; to increase the teens of office for Posrtton Nos. 7&8 to
three years and the method of election Cor these positions from plurality to majority vote
requirement, and to eliminate temp limits for elected officials for the Cfty of Port Arthur fn
Jefferson and Orange Counties, Texas, submitted to the Attorney General pursuant [o Sectron 5
of the Voting Rights Act, 42 D.S.C. 1973c. We received your submission on February 21, 2006;
supplemental infomration was received through April 4, 2006.
Your March 16, 2006; letter indicates that the City no longer wishes to implement the
polling place change from the Sabine Pass Fire Station to the Sabine Pass High School.
natterd~IProcedurdestfor thetAdministratAioto olf Section 5 of the Voa g Rights Acte(28rC 1= Rlg this
S1 75 and 51.351
The Attomey General does not interpose any objection to the remaining specified changes.
However, we note that Section 5 expressly provides that the failure of the Attomey General to
object does not bar subsequent litigation to enjoin the enforcement of the changes. In addition,
as authorized by Section 5, we reserve the right to reexamine this submission if additional
information that would otherwise require an objection comes to our attention during the
Vct rig Rights Act (28 C.F.R~51.41e rid SL43)~ures for the Administration of Section 5 of the
Please be advised that Sections 4(f)(4) and 203(c) of the Voting Rights Act require that the
servfe voters with 1 in ted English prof aency. 1See the Att mey General's Language Minorrty
Guidelines (28 C.F.R. Part 55), available at www.usdoj.gov/cNvoting/28c&/55/28efr55.htm.
-2-
Section 5 revieev is required for any changes affecting voting (~, implementation
schedule for changes in method of election and terms of office) ~vhrch are adopted as a result of
the May 13, 2006, special election. See 28 C.F.R. 51.15.
Sincerely,
/Gf li~ii ~'~~~,~/dG~~
John Tanner
~ief, Voting Section
EXHIBIT ~~D"
~.
OSCAR ORTI Z , M_',YOR
DELORIS PRINCE, MAYOR PRO TE7`
COUNCIL MEMBER=:
WILLIE LEWIS. ,i: ~
FELIX A. BHENDERSON
THOMAS
MARTIN FLOOD
JOHN. BEARD, JR.
ROBERT"E. WILLZAMSON
MICHAEL "SIIANE" SINEGAL
May 24, 2006
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
7003 1680 0000 2591 3630
II. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
C;vi1 Rights Di-vision, Room 7254-NWB
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Voting Section 1800G
G;ashington; D.C. 20530
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL (RRR) 7003 1680 0!'00
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Chief, Voting Section
Civil Rights Division
Room 7254-NWB
Department of Justice
1800 G Street, N.W.
Fiashington, D.C. 20006
Dear Sir(s):
RE: SIIBMISSION IINDER SECTION 5 OF
May 13, 2006 Elections
591 3647
R
.---
MAF' SOKULOW
CITY ATTO
On N,ay 13, 2006, the City held an election. Attached
is Ordinance No. 06-26 canvassing ,the results thereof.
Please note that the City Charter was amended as aandsSix.
of the approval of Propositions Three, Four, Five,
at this election.
As noted in Ordinance No. 06-26,~the following
propositions were adopted:
PROPOSITION NO. ONE:
Election Code 501:035 '
"The legal sale of mixed beverages in restaurants by
food and beverage certificate holders only."
PROPOSITION N0. THREE:
Shall Section lA of Article II of the City Charter be
amended as follows:
"Section iA. Council Positions 7 and 8
Until May 2008, Council Positions ~
and S shall have two (2) Year terms.
The elections of Council Pos2008n and
and 8 shall be in the yea'"
a majority vote, and
thereafter by ear terms.
they shall have three (3) Y
This provision supercedes any
conflicting portion of the City
Charter in relation to the election of
Council Positions 7 and 8." ,
PROPOSITION N0. FOIIR:
Shall Section 7 of Article XIV of the City Charter
be amended as follows:.
"Section 7. Sale or Lease of Property
No right, title or interest
and to any .property shall
leased unless authorized
Council by a Resolution if
lease and by an Ordinance
sale."
of the City
be sold or
~y the City
it is a
if it is a
PROPOSITION NO. FIVE:
Shall the fourth sentence of Section l of.Article
XIV of the City Charter be amended as follows:
i.usdoj_ ele ction. Lt re
"All contracts for expenditures shall
be authorized in accordance with the
minimum standards as delineated under
state law:"
PROPOSITION NO. SIX: 3 of
first two sentences of Section it
Shall the Charter be amended as
Article II of the City
and car allowances for the
pertains tO sa Council.
Mayor and City
"The Mayor and Councilmembers shall
receive a salary and car allowance as
delineated in an Ordinance set by the
City Council at such time as they
approve the fiscal year budget for the
City, with due opportunity for public
comment . "
PROPOSITION N0. SEVEN: and
Shall the City Council be authorized to sell,
by proper instrument in writing, convey to such
person, or persons whom the City Council deems
advisable, and upon such terms and conditions as
said City Council may deem advisable and proper,
certain property being more particularly described
as follows: the park land at.Fairlea Addition.
PROPOSITION N0. EIGHT:
the next two years, shall the existing
Use Tax within the City of
For
Section 4A Sales and for amateur sports, and
Port Arthur be utiland events, including ball
athletic ..purposes football fields, and
parks, soccer fields, which is a
related concession, and facilities,
category of projects under Section 4B of Article
5190.6 Vernon's Texas Code Statutes, with the
condition that total annual spending on all
Section 4B projects by the City of Port Arthur
oration will
ear. Said period of
Section 4A Econo 000. Dperl Y ment orp
not exceed $500, additional two years by
time can be extended as 2/3 vote of the City;
the City Council by
z.usdoj_ election.ltie
Council after receiving public comment of the
proposed cost and impact of the projects.
PROPOSITION NO. NINE:
For the next two years, shall the existing Section
4A Sales. and Use~Tax within the City of Port
Arthur be utilized to promote or develop ne"~ or
expanded business enterprises that create
retain primary jobs, including a project to
provide demolition of existing structures, which
is a category of projects under Section 4B of
Article 5190.6 Vernon's Texas,Code Statutes, with
the condition that total ,annual spending on all
Section 4B projects by the City of Port Arthur
Section 4A Economic Development Corporation will
not exceed $500,0.00 per year. Said period of time
can be extended an additional two years by the
City Council by a 2/3 vote of the City Touosed
after receiving public comment .of the p p
cost and impact of the projects.
As noted in Ordinance No. 06-26, the..following
proposition did not pass:
PROPOSITION N0. TWO:
Shall the last line of Section 1 of Article II of the
to remove the prohibition
City Charter be deleted as Councilmember shall
that neither the Mayor nor any
serve more than three (3) consecutive terms in the
same office.
Please note that Proposition No. 3, as approved by the
voters, states that, "The elections of Council Positions 7
and 8 shall be in the year 2008 and thereafterear terms."
majority vote, and they shall have three (3) y
This proposition was contained in thelsubmoi~he Maye2008
2006. It will app Y all
dated February 16, after the 2008 election,
Council elections. Therefore, ear terms.
councilmembers wi7.1 have three (3) Y
If you have any questions or comments, please contact
this office at your convenience.
¢.vsdoj_ election.ltr9
Sincerely,
~~ ~~~~~~
Mark T. Sokolow
City Attorney
MTS:ts
Ordinance No. 06-26
Enclosure:
cc: Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Secretary
Director of Planning
Right of Way Specialist
Tom Maness
District Attorney
JEFFERSON COIINTY
1001 Pearl
Beaumont, TX 77001
Carole Keeton Strayhor;~
Comptroller of Public Accounts
LBJ Office Building
Room 104
Austin, TX 78774
SECRETARY OF STATE
State Capitol Building
Room 1E.8
Austin, TX 78701
County Clerk
JEFFERSON COIINTY
p O. Box 1151,
Beaumont, TX 77704
County Clerk
ORANGE COIINTY
801 Division
Orange, TX 77630
John D. Kimbrough
pRANGE COIINTY
801 Division
Orange, TX 77630
y.usdoj_ elect ion. It re
cc: TEXAS DEPARTTSENT OF INSIIRANCE
333 Guadalupe
p, O. BoTX1478~14-9104
Austin,
y.usdoj_ election. ltre
EXHIBIT ~~E"
.TKT:MSR:JEM:par
DJ 166-012-3
2006-4623
Civil Rights Division
Valing Seclinn - NWQ
950 Pennephmnio Avcnur, NW
Wasliinglnu, DC 10530
JUL `' -~ 7006
July 19,.2006
Mr. Mark T. Sokolov
City Attorney
P.U. Box 1089
Port Arthur, Texas 77641-1089
Dear Mr. Sokolov:
This refers to a change in the terns of office for at-large council Position Nos. 7 and S from
taro to three years by majority vote and the.implementation schedule for the Cit)~ of Port Arthur
5 of therV ot2~~d gl tsgAc.L 4~tUSS Cx1973cbny'~Iced ceivedAtoo ~s bmession on Maw 30 5006. n
The Attorney General does notinterpose any objection to the-specified changes. However,
not lbar stubs gnen~ lit g tionsto epjo iidthe enforccmentrof tl elcl anges1eP ocedu es fobthe~ does
Administration of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (28 C.1''.R. 51.41).
Sincerely,
' i !r C,.'
/~'\ John Tanner
I Chief, Voting Section