Dennis THERIOT; Ann Rodriguez; Ronald Perrin; Norman A. Ronquille; David J. Dowell; Iris C. Isenmann; Herman J. Carbo; Maplewood Civic Association, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PARISH OF JEFFERSON, State of Louisiana; T.J. Ward, also known as Butch; Donald Jones; Edmond Muniz; Nick Giambelluca, in his official capacity as member of the Parish Council, Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana; Tim Coulon, in his official capacity as President of Jefferson Parish; Aaron Broussard, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Jefferson Parish Council; Lloyd F. Giardina; John Lavarine, in his official capacity as member of the Jefferson Parish Council; Defendants-Appellees, United States of America; Department of Justice, Intervenor Defendants--Appellees, The Council of the City of Kenner; Terry McCarthy; Betty Bonura; Marc Johnson; Jeannie Black; John Lavarine, III; Michele Branigan; Phil Capitano, Intervenors-Appellees.
No. 97-30729.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 17, 1999.
185 F.3d 477
Haywood H. Hillyer, III, Dominic N. Varrecchio, New Orleаns, La, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Harry A. Rosenberg, Maria Nan Alessandra, Phelps Dunbar, New Orleans, LA, Thomas G. Wilkinson, Jefferson, LA, Kim Maria Boyle, Roy J. Rodney, Jr., Rodney, Bordenave, Boykin, Bennette & Boyle, New Orleans, LA, for Defendants-Appellees. Rebecca K. Troth, U.S. Department of Justice, Mark L. Gross, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Washington, DC, for U.S. and U.S. Dept. of Justice. Michael James Laughlin, New Orleans, LA, for Intervenors-Appellees.
Conclusion
For these reasons, we affirm Moreno’s conviction and sentence.
CARL E. STEWART, Circuit Judge:
In this appeal, we must decide whether appellants were entitled to prevail at the bench trial on their claim that the Third Councilmanic District of the Parish of Jefferson is unconstitutional because it results from a racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and of
I
A
The Parish of Jefferson (“Jefferson Parish” or the “Parish”) is a political subdivisiоn of the State of Louisiana. Pursuant to the Jefferson Parish Home Rule Charter (“Home Rule Charter”), Jefferson Parish is governed by a Parish President and a council that is comprised of seven members. The Jefferson Parish Council (the “Council”) is authorized to manage and to operate the Parish government. Jefferson Parish utilizes a majority vote requirement in its councilmanic elections under the terms of its Home Rule Charter.
Since January 1986,1 several cases pertaining to the constitutionality of Jefferson Parish’s councilmanic districts have been filed in federal court.2 In the first case,
Subsequently, in East Jefferson Coalition for Leadership and Development v. Parish of Jefferson, 691 F.Supp. 991 (E.D.La.1988), voting rights organizations and individual registered voters brought an action against the Parish alleging that the 4-2-1 plan violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended in 1982,
On February 16, 1990, the parties adopted a plan which included six single-member districts and one at-large district (“February 1990 Plan”). The district court subsequently approved the plan. Of the single member districts, District 3 contained a black majority with a tоtal black population of 51.7%, according to the 1980 Census, and 56.3% black voter registration. On May 10, 1990, the Attorney General precleared this plan under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.6 The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) precleared the Parish’s alternative plan. On appeal, the Parish challenged the district court’s findings that the minority group was sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a single-member district;
B
After remand from this court, the district court held a status conference stating that the Feb. 1990 plan had to be modified to be in accord with the population vаriances triggered by the 1990 Census.8 The 1990 Census reflected an increase in the black voting-age population (“BVAP”). Moreover, since District 3 had lost population overall, it required reconfiguration to avoid a constitutional one-person, one-vote violation. The DOJ informed the attorneys for Jefferson Parish that it would require a benchmark, or a minimum 52.3% BVAP majority in District 3 in order to pre-clear a new redistricting plan drawn under the 1990 Census. The district court encouraged the parties to work together to formulate the necessary modifications and to adhere to a May 15, 1991 deadline for submission of the modified plan.
During the subsequent meetings among the Parish council members, each councilman brought certain political concerns to the attention of other council persons. One or more of the individual incumbent council members sought to include in their districts voters who could be expected to support them in a bid to gain reelection. Additionally, the Parish sought to avoid contests between incumbent council members. In this regard, District 2 also received significant attention because it was likely to feature a race between incumbent councilmen James Lawson and Lloyd Giardina.
During the ensuing negotiations, a number of proposals surfaced among the council members. Councilman James Lawson’s plan (the “Lawson Plan” or “modified plan”) garnered the most support because it permitted other incumbents to maintain as much of their pre-1988 districts as possible. It retained the six-and-one councilmanic scheme, with six single-member councilmanic districts and one at-large seat (“6-1”). Additional adjustments were made to accommodate a particularly vocal constituent, Ida Saik, a resident of Maplewood.9 The Lawson Plan split some precincts to аccommodate changes in the numbers of registered voters10 and included a black majority councilmanic district, District 3, with a BVAP of 57.40%. By resolution No. 69122, passed on May 8, 1991, the Jefferson Parish Council adopted the modified plan. All of the council mem-
On May 15, 1991, Jefferson Parish filed the modified plan with the district court but the district court rejected the modified plan and admonished the parties for letting “politics” enter the districting process. The district court appointed a special master to draw up a redistricting proposal for the court. On June 10, 1991, the special master submitted a 6-1 redistricting plan to the district court containing a black councilmanic district with 49% BVAP, a BVAP percentage less than the BVAP adopted in the Lawson plan. The trial court entered its judgment implementing the redistricting plan drawn by the special master but a рanel of this court, in an unpublished per curiam opinion, found that the plan was a “Judge Made Plan” and impermissibly intruded “into the bailiwick of the legislative branch of local governments.”
This court further found that the special master’s plan “must fall for failure to include one district with a majority black voting age population.” We held that the district court “should promptly adopt and implement a plan that, while applying the 1990 census data, otherwise remains as faithful as practicable to ‘the’ Plan, including a black voting age majority in District No. 3.” This court also approved the modified redistricting plan submitted by the Jefferson Parish Council and instructed the trial court to issue an injunction directing the Parish to submit the modified plan to the DOJ for expedited review under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Thereafter, pursuant to our instructions, the district court was to order the implementation of the modified plan immediately upon receipt of the notice of pre-clearance.
After our decision and the district court’s subsequent judgment revoking its previous judgment and ordering the Parish to submit the modified plan for pre-clearance, the Parish Council complied. The Parish Council submitted the modified plan to the DOJ by letter dated August 15, 1991.11 The DOJ responded on August 27, 1991, in a letter which stated that the Attorney General did not interpose any objection to the specified change. The first elections using the modified plan were held in 1991. Two African-American candidates advanced to the run-off in District 3, and Donald R. Jones was elected to the Parish Council.12
C
On July 28, 1995, Dennis Theriot and six other registered voters in District 3, along with the Maplewood Civic Association (collectively, the “Appellants”), brought suit against the Parish and Parish Council officials challenging the configuration of District 3. The Appellants deemed District 3 a racial gerrymander in violation of the Fоurteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
The district court made findings of fact and drew conclusions of law. Factually, the district court found that political incumbency “drove the pencil” in designing District 3. One-person and one-vote considerations were paramount in configuring District 3 which the district court determined was sufficiently compact. In its discussion of compactness аnd contiguity, the district court described the geography of the Parish and the location of predominantly black communities within the Parish. The district court further found that the Parish was not unaccustomed to splitting districts in order to achieve political goals. The district court identified communities of interest within District 3 and found that an increase in the BVAP justified using a 52.3% benchmark for determining retrogression under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Finally, the district court found, as a matter of fact, that vestiges of discrimination remain in Jefferson Parish.
As a matter of law, the district court held that the Appellants failed to carry their burden of proof regarding the predominance of race in the configuration of District 3. Consequently, the district court declined to apply strict scrutiny. The shape of the district, according to the district court, did not demonstrate circumstantially that race motivated the form of the district because District 3 was not configured to appear similar to a “Rorschach ink-blot;” “a bug splattered on a windshield;” or “a sacred Mayan bird.” In short, because District 3 does not wind in a serpentine fashion, the district court found that it did not have any of the visual indices apparently obvious in Hays v. Louisiana, 515 U.S. 737, 115 S.Ct. 2431, 132 L.Ed.2d 635 (1995), Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 115 S.Ct. 2475, 132 L.Ed.2d 762 (1995); and Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 113 S.Ct. 2816, 125 L.Ed.2d 511 (1993) (“Shaw I”).
The district court further held that since it had determined that strict scrutiny did not apply and that no constitutional violation had occurred, no harm resulted in re-evaluating the issues in light of Shaw I and its progeny. In its conclusion, the district court emphasized that strict scrutiny did not apply yet explained that, even if it did, District 3 is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling State interest.
The district court denied Appellants’ subsequent motions for a new trial or otherwise alter the judgment of the district court. On July 15, 1997, Appellants timely appealed the district court’s judgment.
II
Appellants raise six issues on appeal.15 We seek to determine whether the district court erred in (1) ruling that race did not predominate in the creation of the current District 3; (2) declining to apply strict scrutiny to the legislative act creating District 3; (3) ruling that a 52.3% black-voting age population was required in order to avoid a section 5 retrogression violation; (4) admitting and relying upon evidence pertaining to community-of-interest testi-
districts and one council member elected at large.
A
Appellants bear the burden of proving an impermissible racial classification. See Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 916, 115 S.Ct. 2475, 132 L.Ed.2d 762 (1995). Appellants may rely upon circumstantial evidence of the district’s shape and demographics or more direct evidence bearing upon legislative purpose. See id. The district court found that “traditional race-neutral districting principles, including but not limited to compactness, сontiguity, and respect for political subdivisions or communities defined by actual and shared interests,” see id. at 916, 115 S.Ct. 2475, were not subordinated to race in drawing District 3. We review the district court’s determination that race did not predominate for clear error. See Miller, 515 U.S. at 917, 115 S.Ct. 2475, see also Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 905, 116 S.Ct. 1894, 135 L.Ed.2d 207 (1996) (Shaw II). It is well settled that “[a] finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when[,] although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire record is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948)).
In an effort to manufacture clear error, Appellants challenge every aspect of the district court’s opinion. They contend that testimony regarding the drawing of the current districts, the documentary evidence in the record, the shape of District 3, and the racial geography within the Parish provides direct and circumstantial evidence of an impermissible racial classification. We disagree. The record reveаls no clear error inasmuch as incumbency protection, maintaining communities of interest, addressing one-person, one-vote concerns and natural geographic conditions predominated in drawing District 3.
1.
In Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952, 116 S.Ct. 1941, 135 L.Ed.2d 248 (1996) (plurality opinion), the Supreme Court recognized, “[i]n some circumstances, incumbency protection might explain as well as, or better than, race a State’s decision to depart from other traditional districting principles, such as compactness, in the drawing of bizarre district lines.” Id. at 967, 116 S.Ct. 1941. Much of the discussion among the Parish Council members during the 1991 redistricting negotiations with the EJC plaintiffs centered on political concerns, particularly the likelihood that councilpersons Lawson and Giardina would each campaign for the single District 2 council seat. Each councilperson brought certain additional political and incumbency concerns to the negotiation process. Although the Lawson Plan resulted in a race between Lawson and Giardina in District 2, it garnered the most support because it met the political and incumbency concerns of the majority of existing councilpersons.
The record indicates that Councilperson Ward preferred the Lawson Plan because it resulted in fewer changes to his district, District 1. Councilperson Larry Hooper sought to maintain as much of his pre-1988 district as possible, particularly the communities of Kenner and River Ridge.
We offer some examples of the testimony we found common throughout the proceedings and which support both the district court and our findings. Councilman Giardina testified:
Q. Was race the primary consideration in the drawing of the current district three?
A. The current district three?
Q. Yeah, primary?
A. Or the current district two?
Q. Current district three.
A. You can’t answer one without the other, they go together.
THE COURT: Just answer the question as to district three right now and you can explain your answer.
THE WITNESS: I don’t think so ... and the reason I’m saying I don’t think so is because if you drew one district it related to the other district, you couldn’t draw just district three[;] you had to draw six districts.
(Tr., Vol. I, at 34). Later, Councilman Giardina testified on the relevanсe of politics:
Q. Let me go back to the districting process involved[;], did politics govern that process in your opinion?
A. It was the prevailing factor.
(Tr., Vol. I, at 43). In subsequent testimony, Councilman Giardina acknowledged the benefit the Lawson Plan offered to incumbent council members:
Q. That preference to keep their optimum areas was the driving force in their voting for the redistricting configuration that we have today, is that right?
A. That’s absolutely right.
(Tr., Vol. I, at 51).
Equally compelling is the testimony of Councilman Lawson:
Q. Isn’t it a fact that in making the current districts you were trying to maximize the black-voter population of District 3?
A. I was trying to address the concerns of all Councilmen, you know. Bob Deviney would call me. Hooper would call me. Muniz would call me. “Butch” would call. Everybody was calling me and saying, “Look, Jim —”
MR. VARRECCHIO: Your Honor, that’s not responsive.
THE WITNESS: “—I want to make sure it’s in here or there,” so I was drawing a district that would address everyone’s concerns, and this is what came out of it.
Q. I want to talk to you about District 3.... Isn’t it a fact that you were trying to maximize the black population of District 3?
A. I think what I was trying to do was simply draw a district that I make sure of my incumbency that I could run in and at the same time make sure I had the right numbers of people in each council district.
Q. Okay. In drawing the current District 3, would it be fair to say that race was your primary consideration in drawing its boundaries?
A. No ... I mean, I was looking to try to retain as much [of] my old district as possible.
(Tr., Vol. XVIII, at 125). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the inclusion or exclusion of communities was inexorably tied to issues of incumbency.18
2.
Like the district court, we also find that District 3 is composed of communities of interest.19 In Miller, 515 U.S. at 920, 115 S.Ct. 2475, the Court held that “a State is free to recognize communities that have a particular racial makeup, provided its action is directed toward some common thread оf relevant interests.” Miller, 515 U.S. at 920, 115 S.Ct. 2475. States, however, may not engage in racial stereotyping, that is, assuming that the voters of the same race “think alike,” share the same political interests, and prefer the same candidates. See id. (explaining that racial stereotyping is at odds with equal protection mandates). The same logic applies to Jefferson Parish.
The record indicates that the neighborhoods and subdivisions that now make up District 3 contain low-income residents who are less-educated, more often unemployed, and more poorly-housed than voters in other districts.20 District 3 residents have common social and economic needs. See Lawyer v. Department of Justice, 521 U.S. 567, 581, 117 S.Ct. 2186, 138 L.Ed.2d 669 (1997) (finding a community of interests as predominantly urban and
Additionally, we reject Appellants’ argument that information pertaining to the socio-economic conditions of the Parish was not properly before the district court since the data was not available to the councilpersons at the time they drew the districts. Appellants rely on the Supreme Court’s decision in Vera. There the Court refused to overturn the district court’s finding that race predominated over other traditional redistricting principles particularly since the State of Texas’s supporting data was not available to the Legislature in any organized fashion before the challenged district was created. See Vera, 517 U.S. at 966, 116 S.Ct. 1941. The Court also held that the State was not required to compile a comprehensive administrative record and courts are not required to dismiss facts not expliсitly mentioned in the redistricting plan’s legislative history. See Vera, 517 U.S. at 966, 116 S.Ct. 1941.
We find that the issues facing Jefferson Parish, including those that affect citizens who reside in the current District 3, are not new; rather they are remnants of the historical subjugation of blacks in the State of Louisiana and in Jefferson Parish. Indeed, evidence concerning the socio-economic conditions of the Parish’s neighborhoods and subdivisions was produced in the preceding EJC litigation, see e.g., EJC, 926 F.2d at 490 (exploring issues of political cohesion), as well as in this case. Many of the same councilpersons were involved in the preceding litigation and are well aware of the socio-economic conditions throughout Jefferson Parish.
3.
We similarly decline to find clear error in the district court’s determination that overwhelming evidence demonstrated that one-person, one-vote considerations were paramount in configuring the districts. The one-person, one-vote provision requires districts to achieve population equality “as nearly as is practicable.” Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74, 98, 117 S.Ct. 1925, 138 L.Ed.2d 285 (1997). The record includes the testimony of Kenneth Hughes, the Director of the Council’s Research and Budget Staff, and Alan Gandolfi, a research analyst and staff attorney. Both testified that one-person, one-vote considerations emerged as their primary concern while working on the various redistricting plans. Additionally, the record reveals a cause and effect relationship between Lawson’s efforts to include politically advantageous communities in District 2 and alterations to the boundaries of District 3 to satisfy one-person, one vote requirements. Overall, we find that the district court’s conclusion that one-person, one-vote concerns were paramount is fully supported by the record.
4.
Geographically, the district court found that the past redistricting tradition in Jefferson Parish did not strictly adhere to geometric standards of compactness. According to the district court, the “very irregular” geography and topography of the Parish (including the fact that it is 50% water) substantially limits the ability of the Parish to adhere to such standards. Consequently, the district court rejected Appellants’ assertion that the District was bizarre on its face.21 We agree and find that any irregularity associated with the shape of District 3 is derivative of politics, joining communities of interest, one-person, one-vote concerns, and the geography
5.
In short we are not persuaded that the district court erred in finding that race did not predominate in drawing District 3. The record presents bountiful evidence supporting the district court’s finding that political incumbency, communities of interest, one-person, one-vote, and geography dwarf issues pertaining to race. We find particularly relevant the following colloquy between the court and Mr. Gandolfi:
THE COURT: To some extent, right down to this case, to some extent, if you look at the shape of these districts, certainly race had something to do with the shape you adopted?
THE WITNESS: Certainly, we had to maintain that majority black.
THE COURT: To some extent, one man one vote dictates the shape?
THE WITNESS: Right.
THE COURT: And to some extent, the geographical boundary of the Parish dictates the shape?
THE WITNESS: To a great extent.
THE COURT: And to some extent incumbency and political concerns dictate the shape?
THE WITNESS: I would say of the four criteria you just mentioned, the last one, the political concerns had the most effect on exactly how those other three goals were achieved. There were different ways of doing it.
(Tr., Vol. 1, at 147).
Appellants implicitly argue that any consideration of race, even where such consideration is de minimis, mandates a finding that race predominates. This implication or argument has been squarely rejected by Miller, Vera, Abrams and the EJC litigation; therefore, we cannot agree.23 Issues of race were relevant, inasmuch as the Parish Council was directed to remedy a Section 2 violation, yet did not predominate.
B
Strict scrutiny analysis is required when a plaintiff proves that race is the “predominant factor” motivating a redistricting decision. See Miller, 515 U.S. at 920, 115 S.Ct. 2475. The Supreme Court has recognized that “[s]trict scrutiny does not apply merely because redistricting is performed with consciousness of race.... Nor does it apply to all cases of intentional creation of majority-minority districts.” Bush, 517 U.S. at 958, 116 S.Ct. 1941. In like manner, this court has opined that “strict scrutiny does not apply to all cases involving the intentional creation of majority-minority districts.” Clark v. Calhoun County, Miss., 88 F.3d 1393, 1404 (5th Cir.1996). Race is inherently a consideration where, as here, a governing body must respond to violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. See id. at 1407.
Had the Appellants demonstrated that race was the predominant factor, the burden would have been on the Parish to demonstrate that its districting legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest. See Miller, 515 U.S. at 920,
C
Jefferson Parish is covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act,
In Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 141, 96 S.Ct. 1357, 47 L.Ed.2d 629 (1976), the Court held that a voting change may not be pre-cleared if it “would lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.” Retrogression occurs when “the ability of minority groups to pаrticipate in the political process and to elect their choices to office is augmented, diminished, or not affected by the change affecting voting.” Id. at 141, 425 U.S. 130. Generally, a determination of retrogression requires a comparison between the proposed voting change and the last legally enforceable practice or procedure used by the jurisdiction. See
The district court found, as a matter of fact, that Jefferson Parish was justified in using 52.3% BVAP as the appropriate benchmark for determining retrogression under Section 5. The district court based its determination on the increase in the black population in District 3 under the findings of the 1990 Census. While the Lawson Plan overshot the benchmark by nearly 5 percentage points, the district court found that the Appellants had not demonstrated that the DOJ coerced the Parish into designing a district that maximizes District 3’s black populаtion as criticized in Miller. We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and find none.
We reject the Appellants’ reliance on Abrams and Young v. Fordice, 520 U.S. 273, 117 S.Ct. 1228, 137 L.Ed.2d 448 (1997) to argue that only the last districting scheme used by the jurisdiction to hold elections is the proper benchmark. Appellants have misread both cases.24 In Abrams, the Supreme Court rejected appellants’ proposed benchmark because it had never been in effect and was found to be unconstitutional. See Abrams, 521 U.S. at 96-97, 117 S.Ct. 1925. The plan for unitary voter registration for state and
Appellants’ invitation to disregard census data in favor of outdated information is impractical. The parties realized the 1990 Census would impact redistricting; therefore, they promulgated an interim plan. Once the 1990 Census provided figures which were not favorable to the Appellants, they sought to disregard its import. Nevertheless, the interim plan was pre-cleared and upheld by the court. A majority-minority district which fell below the documented increase in the BVAP would have been subject to a Section 2 challenge.
By insisting on benchmark figures wholly inconsistent with increases in the BVAP, Appellants attempt to sentence minorities complaining of vote-dilution to a fate similar to Sisyphus.25 Even though this court has found a Section 2 violation and required the parties to make adjustments based on the 1990 Census, Appellants would have us turn the Appellees away and have them prove a Section 2 violation all over again. We decline to impose such a requirement. Once a litigant has demonstrated vote dilution and the court has directed redress, the litigant need not prove vote dilution once again before a court can assess the merits of thе proposed remedy. Otherwise, it is conceivable that courts may never reach the merits of the proposed remedy. Appellants have failed to demonstrate clear error. Again, we are satisfied that to the extent the current District 3 exceeds the benchmark, political incumbency and other political concerns were the driving force.
D
Appellants argue that the trial court erred in deciding which witnesses to credit and which to discount at trial. Factual findings from a bench trial are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. See Odom v. Frank, 3 F.3d 839 (5th Cir.1993);
The burden of showing that the findings of a district court are clearly erroneous is heavier if credibility of witnesses is a factor in the district court’s determination. See Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 254 (5th Cir.1996). A trial court’s decision to credit the testimony of one, two, or more witnesses, each of whom has told a coherent, facially-plausible story that is not contradicted by extrinsic evidence, and can virtually never be clear error. See Justiss Oil Co., Inc. v. Kerr-McGee Refining Corp., 75 F.3d 1057 (5th Cir.1996). Appellants’ argument fails to surpass the standard of review under clear error. As opposed to directing this court’s attention to extrinsic evidence, Appellants use positive adjectives to describe beneficial testimony and negative adjectives to describe unfavorable testimony. However, the district court’s analysis turns on choosing between plausible alternatives and Appellants have failed to show clear error in this regard. This court declines to depart
E
We review a district court’s decision denying discovery, including quashing deposition subpoenas, for abuse of discretion. See Tiberi v. CIGNA Ins. Co., 40 F.3d 110, 112 (5th Cir.1994); see also Hastings v. North East Indep. Sch. Dist., 615 F.2d 628 (5th Cir.1980).
The magistrate judge rejected the Appellants’ argument that they were entitled to take the depositions of defendants’ trial attorneys, Harry Rosenberg and M. Nan Alessandra. The magistrate judge found that “plaintiff-intervenor’s [Cleta White] premise that defendant’s attorneys are the only persons with information about how or why redistricting or a remedy occurred is rank speculation hovering near the absurd.” In like manner, the distriсt court rejected this argument. Nevertheless, the district court did provide the Appellants with an alternative to deposing the Parish’s attorneys, by stating that “the record in this case is voluminous and presents a more than adequate alternative source for the proof intervenor’s counsel seeks to meet the standard of Miller.”
Notwithstanding Appellants’ reference to material outside the record, Appellants have not met the high standard for demonstrating abuse of discretion.26 The entire record in the EJC case was available to the parties in this litigation. Moreover, the district court referred the Appellants to John Tanner of the DOJ as the person who would have the best knowledge and information regarding the sought information. Deposing Rosenberg and Alessandra was also complicated by the fact that they were counsel for the opposing side. Generally, federal courts have disfavored the practice of taking the deposition of a party’s attorney; instead, the practice should be employed only in limited circumstances. See Shelton v. American Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323, 1327 (8th Cir.1986). Given the alternatives and Appellants’ failure to demonstrate abuse of discretion, this claim must fail.
III
Resolution of this case turns on the issue of whether race predominated in the redistricting plan. Like the district court before us, we cannot find that race predominated. While relevant, issues pertaining to race were subordinated to concerns for political incumbency, joining communities of interest, satisfying one-person, one vote requirements, and geographical realities. Since the Appellants fail to demonstrate that race predominated, we need not apply strict scrutiny analysis to the formation of District 3. They record and Judge Duval’s well-supported findings reflect careful, thorough consideration of the issues in this sensitive case. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.