Kenneth Fairley, Sr. v. Hattiesburg Mississ
662 F. App'x 291
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (African-American voters and community leaders) sued Hattiesburg under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act after the city adopted a five-ward redistricting plan following the 2010 Census. Plaintiffs later withdrew Equal Protection and Fifteenth Amendment claims.
- Post-2010 Census, African Americans were a citywide majority of total population (~54%) and a plurality/slightly less than half of the voting-age population (~48–49%).
- The city considered three plans: the Adopted Plan (three majority-white wards, two majority-Black wards) and two alternatives submitted by local advocates/council members that would have produced three majority-Black wards. The Adopted Plan was precleared under §5.
- Parties stipulated that the three Gingles preconditions were met: (1) compact, sizable Black population sufficient to form three districts; (2) political cohesion among Black voters; and (3) white bloc voting usually defeats Black-preferred candidates.
- At trial the district court found many Senate Factors either neutral or favoring the city (responsiveness, socioeconomic effects not depressing participation, lack of racial appeals, tenuousness of defendant’s motives), but found racial polarization and some historical discrimination favor plaintiffs; it placed significant weight on rough proportionality (and the citywide election of an African‑American mayor) and entered judgment for Hattiesburg.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Adopted Plan violates §2’s results test (totality of circumstances) despite satisfying Gingles preconditions | Fairley: satisfied Gingles + totality (polarized voting, history, lack of Black seats in majority-white wards) demonstrate vote dilution; city could have created three majority-Black wards or a competitive swing ward | Hattiesburg: district court’s local appraisal shows no dilution — rough proportionality to voting‑age population, robust Black participation (including election of Black mayor), responsiveness of officials, and legitimate redistricting objectives | Affirmed district court: no §2 violation; findings on totality (including rough proportionality and responsiveness) not clearly erroneous |
| Proper weight and use of exogenous (mayoral) elections in §2 analysis | Fairley: mayoral wins not dispositive and should not be allowed to negate predominant Senate Factors | Hattiesburg: exogenous results are admissible and relevant to show Black political power and participation | Court: exogenous elections have limited probative value but may be considered; district court permissibly relied on mayoral results among other evidence |
| Role of proportionality in totality analysis — whether rough proportionality is decisive or a safe harbor | Fairley: proportionality cannot be treated as a safe harbor; city chose a less-proportional plan and failed to consider a swing ward option | Hattiesburg: rough proportionality (especially by VAP) favors city; strict proportionality impossible with five seats and small deviations are allowed | Court: proportionality is a relevant factor but not dispositive; district court’s use of rough proportionality was permissible and not clear error |
| Whether district court applied Clark I properly (i.e., explain why §2 fails where Gingles are met) | Fairley (dissent): court inverted Clark I; where Gingles met and two predominant factors favor plaintiffs, court must explain why no §2 violation — district court failed to do so | Hattiesburg: district court undertook an intensely local appraisal and articulated findings across Senate Factors supporting its conclusion | Majority: district court’s explanation and findings satisfied clear-error standard; dissent viewed application as legally insufficient (dissenting opinion disagrees) |
Key Cases Cited
- Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) (establishes three preconditions and Senate Factors for §2 vote-dilution claims)
- League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006) (totality inquiry and Senate Factors guidance)
- Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997 (1994) (proportionality concept in §2 analysis)
- Clark v. Calhoun County (Clark II), 88 F.3d 1393 (5th Cir. 1996) (exogenous elections less probative; importance of polarization and election results)
- Fairley v. Hattiesburg (Fairley I), 584 F.3d 660 (5th Cir. 2009) (prior Fifth Circuit treatment of Hattiesburg redistricting and use of VAP)
- N.A.A.C.P. v. Fordice, 252 F.3d 361 (5th Cir. 2001) (district court deference and need to explain §2 conclusions under totality)
- Rodriguez v. Bexar County, 385 F.3d 853 (5th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for §2 and limited role of exogenous elections)