274 F. Supp. 3d 395
M.D. La.2017Background
- Plaintiffs (Black registered voters and Terrebonne Branch NAACP) challenge Terrebonne Parish’s at-large elections for the 32nd Judicial District Court (five non-staggered, parishwide judicial divisions), alleging Section 2 and constitutional (Fourteenth/Fifteenth Amendment) violations for vote dilution and discriminatory maintenance of the at-large system.
- Extensive bench trial (27 witnesses, 350+ exhibits). Historically, from 1968 until this litigation only in 2014 had a Black candidate ever won a parishwide judicial seat; other parishwide offices likewise lacked Black officeholders.
- Plaintiffs presented an Illustrative five‑district map creating one majority‑Black single‑member district; experts agreed the proposed district exceeds 50% Black voting‑age population and is geographically compact under traditional districting principles.
- Statistical analyses of parish-wide (mostly exogenous but probative) elections showed stark racially polarized voting: strong Black cohesion and very low non‑Black support for Black candidates; defendants’ non‑racial explanations (money, incumbency, timing) were rejected as insufficient to rebut race as the explanatory factor.
- The Legislature repeatedly rejected proposals (1997–2011) to create a majority‑Black subdistrict or otherwise change the election method; the court found the legislative history, contemporaneous statements, and pattern of opposition to be at least partly motivated by race.
- Holding: court found both a Section 2 discriminatory effect (vote dilution) and that a discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor in maintaining the at‑large system; liability was bifurcated from remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / standing | Plaintiffs suffer cognizable injury from vote dilution and state officials (Governor, AG) are proper defendants | Defendants claimed Eleventh Amendment immunity and lack of standing because occasional Black success (Pickett) and other officials (Sec. of State) control elections | Court rejected Eleventh Amendment bar; found Article III standing satisfied and defendants are proper parties |
| Section 2 (discriminatory effect) — Gingles preconditions | A majority‑Black single‑member district is feasible (numerosity, compactness); voting is racially polarized (Gingles II/III); totality of circumstances supports dilution | Defendants disputed numerosity metrics, compactness, and argued non‑racial explanations for results | Court found Gingles I–III satisfied, multiple Senate factors (notably RPV and lack of Black electoral success) favor Plaintiffs and concluded §2 violation |
| Discriminatory purpose (constitutional & §2) | Legislative/administrative history, sequence of events, and pretextual justifications show race was a motivating factor in maintaining at‑large voting | Defendants offered neutral policy justifications (judicial linkage, procedural concerns, public comment) | Court concluded discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor; maintained at‑large system would not have been preserved without that factor |
| Remedies / remedial posture | Plaintiffs seek creation of majority‑Black subdistrict and possible preclearance relief | Defendants emphasize state linkage interest in at‑large judicial elections and argue remedy should respect that interest | Court bifurcated liability and remedy; linkage interest found not to outweigh proof of dilution; remedy phase to follow (status conference set) |
Key Cases Cited
- Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) (Gingles preconditions and totality inquiry for §2 vote‑dilution claims)
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (factors for proving discriminatory intent)
- Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013) (preclearance / Section 5 context affecting comparisons)
- Veasey v. Abbott, 830 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2016) (standing and discriminatory intent analysis in voting cases)
- League of United Latin American Citizens v. Clements, 999 F.2d 831 (5th Cir. 1993) (balancing state judicial linkage interest against §2 proof)
- Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991) (application of Voting Rights Act to judicial elections)