Frank J. Robinson v. Commissioners Court, Anderson County, and the Honorable N. R. Link, County Judge, Anderson County, Texas

Timothy ard, Smith, black resi- S. Hardee, Tex., Tyler, Brooks Richard registered voters of Anderson dents Calhoon, Billy Gragg, Jerry L. H. Pales- Texas, County, initiated this suit Tex., tine, defendants-appellants. for for the Federal District Court Eastern Tex., R. Richards, Austin, David for Commis- of Texas District plaintiffs-appellees. County Judge of Court and sioners County (hereinafter Commis- Anderson GOLDBERG, Before GODBOLD Court), charging that the then sioners Judges. MORGAN, Circuit existing Judge: con- GOLDBERG, election into Circuit stitutionally under the Four- unsound gerrymander from a This case results Amendments. and Fifteenth teenth County, Court, presided over Texas, dilute the black vote governing body County Judge, is Unfortunately, elections. Commissioner is invested with of Anderson rights disrespect districting. statutory responsibility county government innovation recent 18, Vernon’s Art. Sec. Const. Texas generally, Texas. Graves Ann.St. (3 judge), Barnes, 343 F. W.D.Tex.1972 hearing January 30, 1974, on Supp. 704, nom. aff’d sub After preliminary Regester, 1973, plaintiffs’ in- motion for a 412 existing junction, apportionment plan court entered an that February 1974, postponing constitutionally on unsound, party primaries pre improperly deadlines for the Commissioners Court was ceding opportunity the Anderson Commis denied an to submit an al- general February election. sioners 9, On ternate bility or to be heard on the feasi- join adopted also entered an order and that the ing Graser, reapportionment plan adopted by as Defendants Louise C. impermis- Democratic Chairwoman Anderson district court constituted an Billy Republican Gragg, gerrymander sible itself. Defendant Gragg argues added improperly Chairman. These defendants that he was February enjoined hearing. were served without a affirm process requiring an answer within reapportionment the district court’s or- days. twenty Gragg’s On March the dis der; appeal moot, we dismiss hearing merits, trict court held a on the postponement and thus vacate the order presented pro plaintiffs the at which insofar as it binds him. posed reapportionment plan. The de party chairpersons fendant were not II present hearing.1 March at the On According figures, to 1970 census 15, March the district court issued an correctly which the trial court relied concluding existing opinion, upon pop- as its best evidence of current precinct County in lines Anderson con distribution, County ulation Anderson racially gerryman stituted “a motivated population 27,789. contains a of Pales- Wright [prohibited by] der v. Rockefell county tine, signifi- seat and most 603, er, 1964, 52, 376 U.S. municipality, population cant 512, Lightfoot, and L.Ed.2d Gomillion v. 14,525. up 20,737 (75%) make Whites 5 L. county population, of the total blacks Ed.2d an as well as 6,972 (25%); popula- in Palestine the operating to minimize or scheme cancel 10,753 tion (74%) white, 3,712 strength voting out the the black greatest (26%) black. The area of Regester, community, White county in the in lies concentration S.Ct. City quadrant the southwest of the Chavis, Whitcomb v. Palestine, within census enumeration 363.” Accord 2,219 districts 22 and 23. Of ingly, the district court entered districts, residents within these census enjoining the Commissioners Court from 1,835 black; thus, (83%) are this con- failing reapportion pre the election represents approximately centration cincts a manner consistent with the County’s Anderson total black 26% awarding plaintiffs’ proposed plan, costs population. attorneys’ fees Commis enjoining Court, and defendants sioners County is divided into four Gragg failing post from Graser precincts, each of which elects one Com- filing up pone certain deadlines for the missioner coming primaries. Gragg and the Com Judge The is elected at Court. appeal missioners large. Before includ- court’s March The 1974 order.2 City ed the entire of the of Palestine argues Commissioners Court county population, with its half of the concluding county district court error in remaining expanse was and the plaintiffs 22, 1974, provide Counsel for the advised the trial tenure of current court that he had representatives notified them of the hear- commissioners ing, quality timing but tlie of that notifi- newly suspend precincts, residency drawn explored. cation was not deadlines, and effect technical corrections its March 1974 order. The substance District Court amended its March 21, 1974, adjustments controversy. 1974 order on March and on March of these is not among required pre- other are was divided three to determine the same question, cincts. whether or not there has manipulation been an unconstitutional re- In the Commissioners Court of electoral district boundaries so as apportioned on the bas- voting to minimize or dilute the registration Each is of voter statistics. strength minority of a or inter- class new of Pales- contained est. significantly, tine. More the black con- into Palestine diced centration in Howard Adams Board of Su pre- parts, in a three each different new pervisors, Cir. September, 1973, cinct. In the Commis- recognized n. 2. We in Zimmer v. Mc Court modified 1969 district- sioners ing, Keithen, supra, at 1305 January pre- effective but Supreme Court has identified “[t]he fragmentation served of the black panoply factors, number of which community along same lines. may dilu contribute to the existence of are applicable tion.” Some of these Plaintiffs maintain that their detail of multi context black vote in Anderson un districting. signifi member The most constitutionally diluted of this means general cant factors also obtain apportionment.3 The for de standards bar, how such matter at cases as the developed cision in dilution cases are ever, where the dilution of a racial primarily dealing multi cases strength group’s ar has been districting. g., member e. ranged by single-member pre shifting 755, 765-770, 1973, Regester, 412 U.S. Thus, cinct boundaries. 314, 93 S.Ct. 37 L.Ed.2d 324-326; Chavis, 1971, v. 403 Whitcomb a minority a can demonstrate [w]here 124, 363; 1858, U.S. 29 91 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d customary, [legal, practical] or lack of Richardson, 1966, 73, v. Burns U.S. 384 slating process of candi- access to the 1294, 376, 88, 1286, 86 S.Ct. 16 L.Ed.2d legisla- unresponsiveness dates, the of 433, 388, Dorsey, v. Fortson 379 U.S. particularized interests, a tors to their 401, 439, 501, 498, S.Ct. 13 L.Ed.2d 85 policy underlying the tenuous state 1973, 405; McKeithen, Turner v. Cir. 5 preference dis- for [the established] McKeithen, F.2d Zimmer v. 5 past tricting, of or the existence that (en banc), F.2d 1297. Cir. general precludes discrimination But participation elec- effective in the strong system, made. tion a case is applying we have no hesitation in fact dilution is estab- . The of tests measure [those to] upon proof of lished of existence constitutionality reapportion- of aggregate of these factors. involving plans only single-mem- ment pronounce- Supreme instance,

ber In each Court’s recent districts. we Adams, operate 1972, to minimize or cancel out the vot 3. In Howard v. 453 F.2d strength political recognized ing 455, or elements of racial we that 457-458 voting population.” Rich Burns v. to establish the existence of a constitution ally impermissible 88, ardson, 1966, 73, redistricting 86 S.Ct. 384 U.S. in the 1286, plaintiffs malapportionment, Whit 16 L.Ed.2d 376. See absence of (1) Chavis, proving 143- v. must the burden comb maintain of racially gerrymander, L.Ed.2d motivated or McKeithen, supra. Accord, along Wright These lines, Zimmer v. racial drawn course, invalidity categories are, Rockefeller, of two mutually Light not ex- We need exclusive. Gomillion v. overlap foot, plore in sin- their here the extent Baggett, gle that cases member district such M.D.Ala. Sims hand; pretermit F.Supp. (2) or consideration Lightfoot designedly otherwise, would alone “. . . whether Gomillion a[n] scheme, this . . under resolve case. . particular ease, of a would circumstances equal po- supra, minority’s access to Regester, ment in White v. however, participation, demonstrates, remains however, that all these litical gerrymander proved lines so as in order to the factors need not be fragment be a otherwise obtain relief. what could voting community. Despite the cohesive McKeithen, 5 Cir. Id. also Turner v. See pre- gross population disparities between redistricting cincts, form was blacks until when effectuated compel the These standards finally organized County conclusion that the district court was the first black elected Plaintiff Smith ruling correct the black vote in and, Democratic Precinct Chairman — unconstitutionally policy- thus, member of first diluted under the Commissioners Court’s making County Executive Democratic begin apportionment. with, To we find Compare modern times. Committee—in support evidence the dis sufficient of Election Moore v. Leflore Bd. findings general trict court’s Commissioners, supra, 502 at 624. voting strength way but realistic Under the apportionment Commissioners’ community the black in Anderson Coun of Anderson ty “continues suffer the effect from was divided into oppressive leg and restrictive running roughly lines, north-south two gener islation and racial discrimination ally meeting east-west, in Palestine. in the State of Texas. they straightened out, these Were Regester, [supra, and the Commis that] community of would have left the black sioners Court of Anderson compact Palestine and cohesive generally unresponsive been to the needs As precinct, southwestern number two. community and interests of the black single drawn, however, ” the lines were Specific . demonstrations wedge intruded from one to segre the record include maintenance of capture the central third of the black con- gation public until schools centration, peninsula ex- and another public in mary until other facilities sum precinct off four draw tended from to county’s dismissal of the black third; thus the westernmost agent, home demonstration and abolition precinct This two.4 third left agency office, appointment of that aof community dismemberment of the black in the 1969 juvenile officer who had been forced out redistricting along — previous position deputy of his sher substantially by adjust- maintained response Sig iff in to a racial incident. January 1,1974 ments effective —had nificantly, while have achieved blacks debilitating predictable effect of or- recognition some in Palestine and School ganization decreasing participa- politics, Board no has ever been county govern- tion of black voters appointed county office, elected or to reelected, ment. Plaintiff Smith was not County appointed and, of course no black been elected gener board or commission. See any county post since. The district ally County of Election Leflore Bd. court determined on this record that Comm’rs,supra, Turner 502 F.2d at 624. apportionment Commissioners’ McKeithen, supra, 194- at designed precisely to dilute the black McKeithen, supra, Zimmer and, vote mindful of the trial court’s F.2d at 1306. peculiarly perspective,5 local no find precise reject most crucial and instru- reason on this record that con- ment of clearly the Commissioner’s denial of clusion as erroneous. Gom- Cf. county Regester, supra, The division of the here was thus 5. See White v. 412 U.S. at quite approved different from that in How- 93 S.Ct. at 37 L.Ed.2d at 326. Supervisors, ard v. Adams su- Bd. pra. Lightfoot, illion v. “legitimate tween Commissioners is a planning 5 L.Ed.2d objective” reapportionment, Reynolds Sims, supra, attempt primarily between to precincts.6 nize it from constitutional attack on the cinct lines were fied tion January 1, 1974), reaching census data mere fact may satisfy tal bution, apportionment by showing plan adopted by ground that it has offended more funda there is sioners Court’s asserted rationale. As at trial and seeks here to mental district court’s Ely Klahr, 1971, demonstrates structing ers Court on 1970 census enumeration districts cincts Ed.2d S. is uncontradicted that the Commission 73, 90-97, population equalize goals statistics. The result was population Burns v. (as relying The Commissioners Court criteria. And on this ample precincts three and four. See does not cohesive defined in the that an apportionments ignored It is 390-393. 1803, 1807, regarding population some rural equalization, the evidence the instead on voter Richardson, discounting evidence to simply clear, however, deviation the trial court legitimate governmen road automatically precinct in accordance with feasibility equalize population By contrast, mileage among product legitimize 11% that its the Commis among pre lines based justify secondarily generally registra effective of con that the between unjusti record, 384 U. sought clearly immu distri 115 n. of an plan pre all L. political able. had been entrusted to the Commissioner whose Indeed, without Moore v. Leflore for rural road of 455, tive of the black here that cincts Anderson could not Rural reality Thus half of the conclusion son sible Court’s 1, 1974, census districts nor lation was 1969’s ation for this road ral Comm’rs, considered district court equalize population and road uating ^[1974] suggestion Supervisors, 456. But there was no mileage districting: find obtaining equal mileage all— ; findings apportionment effective before consciousness of the black Howard v. Adams was gerrymandering governing body unrepresenta 5 Cir. easily equalization ample support merely important county.8 Moreover, boundaries— is an insufficient ratiocin constitutionally impermis did not constitutionally found, mileage citizenry. included the significant have been the record that the more here was an excuse for the Commissioners fact, and affirm its logical little rural suddenly division of rural 502 F.2d at followed neither likely Bd. of Election had ever been for the district allocating pre which, responsibility in Palestine. boundaries— before 1969. new adjusted suggestion municipal unaccept- become a January there is mileage mileage perpet reality. as the rising a rea popu Bd. ru recognized physical boundaries Ill which diminish deviation to a fraction percent. two raises of Commissioners Court We have noted that the equalization county objections the mileage of to district basic road be contrary, Although urge suggested by 6. Plaintiffs to the A third consideration one wit- court, pretermit, trial consid- as did the ness for the Commissioners Court was to arrange suf- this deviation alone of whether the eration intersection three unconstitutionality the at fices to establish the Courthouse to enable three apportionment. justices peace Court’s the Commissioners of the to use those facilities and still sit within tlieir districts. But this Furthermore, apparently attention was required only slight precinct “dogleg” in drawing mileage municipal road devoted to very population four, and “affected the count although lines, the 1969 or 1974 the Appendix little.” at 177. responsibility occasionally county for shared Appendix city maintaining at 186. roads.

{J81 plan adoption implementation alternative be effective to districting plan. Apparently position plaintiffs’ proposed election. its delay district court should con argues first the district It sideration of relief until the Commis remedy implementing its court erred in reevaluated its sioners Court simultaneously invalidation of with its originally scheduled, it lines as had dur “ju existing apportionment, because ing August, 1974, “ade its term. The appropriate dicial relief becomes language Reynolds quate opportunity” the Commissioners fails to [if Court] however, Sims, supra, mean, does not reapportion according federal consti invariably that a federal court must timely requisites tutional in a fashion legislative await action after it declares having adequate opportunity after an existing apportionment unconstitutional so,” Sims, Reynolds do apportionment. proper before it directs L.Ed.2d contrary, Supreme To the as the Court op there because was no Reynolds supra, Sims, established portunity objections even to raise to the at 12 L. U.S. at feasibility adopted plan. findWe legisla- Ed.2d at “once a . no merit in these contentions. tive scheme has been The Commissioners Court was afford- unconstitutional, found to be it would be adequate opportunity litigate ed an the unusual ease which a court would apportionment plan the merits of the taking justified appropriate be adopted by the court. The district com- action to insure that no further elections plaint sought advised that the relief plan.” are conducted under the invalid reapportionment would include a of An- designed approving Moreover, in relief pre- derson into Commissioners by a court “faced with severe district cincts, hearing prelim- and at the on the pressures” im- time on account inary injunction the Commissioners pending election, Supreme ob- Court plaintiffs advised that Howell, 410 served in Mahan v. 332, present proposed plan would hearing their at on the merits. At the March 334, that merits, plaintiffs on the trial [application interim remedial presented supporting their voting rights techniques in cases testimony, and the Commissioners Court largely courts. been left establish, opportunity did and had an Reynolds Sims, supra, at develop, objections proposed to the S.Ct., L.Ed. 1394 [12 plan. 2d at The courts are bound 541]. apply equitable considerations and Moreover, the trial did not court Reynolds was stated that “[i]n adopting plaintiffs’ plan err awarding withholding immediate November, effective for the elec relief, a to consider court is entitled tion of two Anderson Commis forthcoming proximity elec sioners, preceding May pri and for the tion . . .” Ibid. proposed maries. had Plaintiffs given compelling that, drawn on census enumeration districts conclude recognized existing boundaries which con constitutional infirmities apportionment scheme, significant population tained no variance the district court adopting and restored the dismembered black of did not err the community implementation re southwest Palestine to a fered in time to single precinct. orderly progress the No The Commissioners sume toward g., proposed vember, 1974, See, e. Ma neither an alternative election. suggested why constitutionally Howell, supra; v. John Connor han v. acceptable plan implemented son, 29 could not be McKeithen, upcoming election, in time for the nor L.Ed.2d Turner v. su requested prepare pra, 196-198; additional time 490 F.2d at Graves to

682 reappor

Barnes, (3 judge), F. substantive interest the 343 W.D.Tex.1972 Supp. sub nom. tionment itself which would necessary parties them aff’d make reapportionment Regester, supra; Graves to the judge), (3 apparently F. The ac Barnes, order. trial court W.D.Tex.1974 cepted argument plaintiffs’ Supp. the that the 640 at 663. party chairpersons properly subject were Court next The Commissioners postponement order, pursuant to the to reapportion substance of the attacks the 71, if not Fed.R.Civ.Proc. otherwise. plan adopted by trial ment court on the now, We cannot consider the issue how ground pre it results one the filing ever, because the as deadlines containing popu black cinct’s 53% postponed primary and date election plan, in ad lation. The already passed, have and the did order integrity respecting to dition apply elections; not to future the issue Palestine, community in southwest black Gragg is moot as between these enumeration follows established census plaintiffs. g., See, e. DeFunis v. Ode recognized physical bounda gaard, 1974, city including limits, ries, Palestine Hollon Mathis Inde among pre population variance reduces pendent Dist., F. School according percent, than one cincts less 2d United States Servicemen's figures. The Commis 1970 census Independent Fund v. Killeen School course, Court, of submitted no sioners Dist., Cir. 693. See here es alternative is Its alternatives. sentially Mississippi Univ., also Gooden v. State court, cor after trial (citing Cir. recent determining rectly the Commission cases). gerryman impermissibly ers Court had of a racial dered so as to dilute the vote plain

group, rejected should have V reapportionment proposed de tiffs’ geometries sum, the In constitutional signed remedy accomplish which would districting representative do not add original the same dilution as the invalid minimizing up electoral clout. apportionment. dis find the able manipulation accomplish Demographic plan proper exercise of trict court’s equity dilution, many other ethnic racial like powers. Zimmer v. McKeith constitutionally interred. relics, has been en, supra, F.2d at 1308. order affirmed The district court’s is Anderson insofar as binds the IY Judge; Court and County Re- appeal of Anderson Gragg, Republi Defendant publican Party as Chairman is dismissed Party can ty, Chairman for Coun moot, postponement, in- and the order argues specification final er as a applied County Repub- to the sofar itas ordering ror that trial court erred accordingly Party va- lican Chairman Chairpersons of the Anderson Coun cated. ty Republican parties Democratic postpone filing certain deadlines. The Judge. GODBOLD, Circuit Party Democratic Chairwoman appeal.10 does not had I in the result. These defendants concur wholly independent components are each is divided into 37 census the other. within one enumeration districts. All of these districts i>recinct compact except are for numbers 13 and brief raises Court’s The Commissioners unat- both of which consist of scattered and issue, presumably co- for the benefit of this pockets City around tached but discreet simply adopted Gragg, appellant who All of dis- of Palestine. census enumeration brief his own. Commissioners Court precinct. trict 19 District is included filing postpone run dates did precincts, 13 is divided between two but they Court; thus the Commissioners standing appeal it. have no

Case Details

Case Name: Frank J. Robinson v. Commissioners Court, Anderson County, and the Honorable N. R. Link, County Judge, Anderson County, Texas

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Date Published: Dec 23, 1974

Citation: 505 F.2d 674

Docket Number: 74-1766

Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.