Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes City Council - 02/07/1983 - Special (2)MINUTES CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 7, 1983 5:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL Present: Mayor Luther Jones Mayor Pro Tem Betty N. Turner Council Members: Jack K. Dumphy Bob Gulley Herbert Hawkins, Jr. Dr. Charles Kennedy Cliff Zarsky City Manager Edward Martin City Attorney J. Bruce Aycock City Secretary Bill G. Read A Mayor Luther Jones called the meeting to order in the Council Chamber of City Hall. City Secretary Bill G. Read verified that the necessary quorum of the Council and the required Charter Officers were present to conduct a legally constituted meeting. Mayor Jones recognized Council Member Cliff Zarsky who indicated that he wanted to make a statement in regard to the voting rights lawsuit. Mr. Zarsky read his response to the Court's decision in Civil Action No. C-81-227, which is the lawsuit challenging the City of Corpus Christi's method of election. In Council Member Zarsky's statement he stated that he was of the opinion that this Council, even though no Mexican Americans serve on it, are very responsive to all citizens of the City including the Mexican American population. He pointed out that the City has expended substantial money for the benefit of those areas in this City in which the Mexican American population is most densely concentrated. Mr. Zarsky continued by stating that in his opinion the Mexican Americans in this City could have elected every candidate running for office if as many as 50% of their registered number had turned out to vote and voted as a block. Mr. Zarsky took MICROFILMED SEP 191984 Minutes Special Council Meeting February 7, 1983 Page 2 exception to some of the conclusions reached by the Court in this lawsuit. In his statement, Mr. Zarsky referred "to the detrimental effect that an election by total single member districts would have on municipal government in this City. Mr. Zarsky concluded his remarks by stating that although he has a great deal of reluctance to superimpose his preference for a modified single member election system upon an electorate that has acted responsibly for the interest and benefit of the entire community, he was of the opinion that greater good would be derived through an attempt to find a system that would protect minority voting rights in the future, especially in the probability of independent slating. He stated that he is willing to agree to a modified system of single member districts that will equal the number of positions elected at large with the mayoral position elected at large as well. He stated that if such a compromise is not acceptable to the Plaintiffs and the trial court, he recommended that the case be appealed. He pointed out that he had offered this same solution before the lawsuit was filed and he still believed that it would serve all citizens best under the present circumstances. (Note: A copy of Council Member Cliff Zarsky's entire statement is attached to the official copy of the minutes of this meeting and considered to be a part thereof.) Council Member Herbert Hawkins took exception to Mr. Zarsky's remarks and expressed the opinion that his statements are in contempt of court and they will be considered by the judge in the case as additional evidence. Mayor Jones interrupted Council Member Hawkins and suggested that the comments be made on the case and that the attack by Council Member Hawkins on Council Member Zarsky is inappropriate. Council Member Hawkins stated that he felt that he was continually being called out of order and that he was being discriminated against since this only occurs when he is speaking. He stated that he was of the opinion that the Council should work with the Hispanic leaders to resolve the matter of election Minutes Special Council Meeting February 7, 1983 Page 3 procedures and that this continuous delay of the lawsuit will divide the entire City. He stated that the motion was never made for a modified plan, as Mr. Zarsky had indicated, by any member of this Council. He expressed the opinion that the court should decide the matter and the lawsuit should not be appealed. A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Turner that in an effort to promote harmony and unity in this community, that the City Council put aside the appeal at this time and pledge to work cooperatively and in good faith with the Plaintiffs on a new election system for the City of Corpus Christi as soon as possible. The motion was seconded by Council Member Gulley. Council Member Gulley continued by stating that he agreed with Council Member Zarsky's statements but he did not think that the case should be appealed at this time, but that the appeal should be an option if a modified plan cannot be worked out with the Plaintiffs. Mr. Gulley then mentioned the people who had originally filed the lawsuit and the other organizations who had joined in the lawsuit and expressed the opinion that the Council should work with them, not with the attorneys, on a plan for a new election system. Council Member Zarsky stated that he did not think that it would be possible to work without the attorneys because the Plaintiff's attorney will insist on being present. Council Member Kennedy stated that he supports the motion, but he was concerned because the people of Corpus Christi cannot vote on the proposed plan. He reminded the Council Members that Judge Kazen did not say that the attorneys should negotiate, but stated that the City Council should work with the Plaintiffs. He expressed the opinion that the 30 -day period is very limited because of the work involved in drawing up the districts. He suggested that because of the short period of time, the Council should meet on days other than Wednesday to devise a satisfactory plan. Minutes Special Council Meeting February 7, 1983 Page 4 Council Member Dumphy agreed with the fact that this is a short period of time and stated that he too would like `to work with the Plaintiffs to devise this system that would be good for all concerned. He stated that if a plan cannot be worked out with the Plaintiffs, he felt that a plan should be submitted to the judge and the court. He expressed the opinion that Council Member Zarsky had prepared a very good opinion because he also felt that the people of Corpus Christi should be able to vote on the type of election system they prefer but that right has been taken away from them. He stated that he felt that Mr. Zarsky's suggestion for a modified plan is the one that would best serve the City. Council Member Kennedy agreed that there are a large number of inaccuracies in the brief filed by Judge Kazen. Mayor Jones asked the attorneys present if they had any comments. Mr. Richard Hall, attorney representing the City, stated that he would be glad to answer any questions but he really had no comments at this time. Mayor Jones called for the vote on the motion and it passed unanimously. Mayor Jones suggested that a meeting for this purpose be established as soon as possible. Council Member Gulley stated that he would like to hear from the City's attorney if in his opinion there was anything wrong with the Council meeting with the Plaintiffs without attorneys present. Mr. Hall stated that he saw no problem with that if the Plaintiffs concurred, but the Council cannot require that the Plaintiffs meet with them without the presence of their attorneys. Mayor Jones asked Mr. Paul Rich and Mr. Juan Gonzalez, representatives of the Plaintiffs, for their opinion. Minutes Special Council Meeting February 7, 1983 Page 5 Mr. Rich stated that they have no objections to working with the City Council, but they did not feel that it was reasonable for the Plaintiffs to meet without their attorneys. He stated that he felt the primary thing was for the Council to set parameters for such a meeting. Mayor Jones asked Mr. Rich if he would be willing explain to the Council the various plans that had been presented. Council Member Gulley objected to having the attorneys explain, stating that he preferred to deal with the Plaintiffs, since they are the ones who filed the lawsuit. Mr. Juan Gonzalez stated that although they had worked with the school district to eliminate busing, this is an entirely different matter and he was of the opinion that the Plaintiffs would need expertise available to both sides to determine what is allowable under the law. Mayor Jones stated he too would prefer to have the City's attorney present at any meetings conducted. Council Member Kennedy pointed out that there are certain decisions that need to be examined, one of which is whether or not the number of members of the City Council should be increased and other questions that need to resolved. He stated this is not a constitutional or legal question, and once decisions are made, then attorneys could be consulted. He stated he agreed with Council Member Gulley that the Council and Plaintiffs could work the matter out and then consult attorneys to interpret the law. He mentioned the fact that there are other questions such as whether or not four- year terms should be considered, whether staggered terms should be considered, residency requirements, etc. Mayor Jones agreed that there are other things that need to be considered and inquired if, as a part of this agreement, the terms and so forth could be changed. City Attorney J. Bruce Aycock stated that the suit is before the federal court and it would be necessary to prove some Minutes Special Council Meeting February 7, 1983 Page 6 connection with approval by the voting rights act, but it is possible that other changes in the election could be made: Mayor Jones urged expediency in deciding on a new election system. City Secretary Read pointed out that this meeting could be recessed and his office could notify the media of any changes or meetings to be set. A motion was made by Council Member Gulley that the Council meet at 4:00 p.m., Wednesday, with the Plaintiffs, with the attorneys to be present to answer questions if necessary. Council Member Hawkins pointed out that all of the organizations involved have attorneys as members. Council Member Gulley noted that local people filed the lawsuit and they should be the ones to resolve the matter, not attorneys from out of the City. The motion was seconded by Council Member Kennedy. Mayor Jones stated that he did not agree that a meeting should be conducted without the attorneys present. Council Member Gulley then withdrew his motion. A motion was made by Council Member Kennedy that the City Council meet with the Plaintiffs at 4:00 p.m. Wednesday, February 9, 1983, with the thrust to be clear that the City Council is working with the Plaintiffs and Gonzalez. The motion was seconded passed unanimously. Mr. Rich stated that the attorneys will not be able to meet at that time and he has been asked as representative of the Plaintiffs to be present at all meetings. He suggested that the Council should meet and set the parameters first. He pointed out that the Plaintiffs have offered alternatives and they would like to see something from the City Council. He stated that he could meet with the Council any time next week. Mayor Jones stated that the meeting could be conducted anyway in order to have the plans analyzed. not with Mr. Rich and by Council Member Gulley Mr. and Minutes Special Council Meeting February 7, 1983 Page 7 Council Members Dumphy and Gulley urged that the Plaintiffs involved in this suit be present at that time. Mayor Jones inquired of the City Manager if he could have the Plans analyzed by the staff and present a report to the Council on Wednesday. He noted that Dr. Fred Cervantes was present in the audience and inquired if he would be willing to attend the meeting to assist with explanations. Dr. Cervantes stated that he is familiar with the plans that were submitted in court, but suggested that the City prepare overlay maps of the districts in accordance with the plans presented by MALDEF. Mayor Pro Tem Turner asked about the 5-3-1 plan devised by Mrs. Pauline Clarke, a representative of the League of Women Voters. Dr. Cervantes stated that that plan was prepared by himself and Mrs. Clarke and presented to the Committee of 16. Mrs. Clarke, who was also present in the audience, stated that the League of Women Voters will make a decision at their meeting on Thursday as to whether or not they support a 5-4 plan. She stated that they had not seen the MALDEF plan. She explained that the League had considered the 5-4 plan but they did not draw lines for the various districts. Mayor Pro Tem Turner expressed concern that the black population would suffer in the 5-4 plan and she would like to see a district designed to include the probability of election of a black. Mayor Jones called for comments from the audience. Mr. Benny Benavides, 2421 Cleo, pointed out that there are other people involved besides the Plaintiffs and MALDEF and he was of the opinion that the citizens should be allowed to provide input into the plan. Mr. Mike Zepeda expressed appreciation to the Council for the invitation to attend the meeting Wednesday. He stated that he felt the Council was aware of their feeling about single member districts and he became involved in the lawsuit in an Minutes Special Council Meeting February 7, 1983 Page 8 effort to change the election system to single member districts. He stated that he had authorized legal counsel to speak for him, but he would attend the meeting. Mr. P. R. Ochoa, 10141 Leopard, stated that he realized that the Council had had trouble with a number of people in Corpus Christi but he felt that this was a matter for the citizens of Corpus Christi and not for the outsiders involved in this case. He expressed opposition to people coming into the City from outside the State and urged that the City Council make decisions for the community. He asked that the Council disregard this organization that has attempted to interfere in City problems. He stated that no one would benefit from a division of the City that would occur if single member districts are formed. Mayor Jones pointed out that the Council must reach a decision in 30 days and he assumed that February 4 would be considered day one. Mr. Hall stated that since March 5 is a Saturday, court rules allow filing the next business day which would be March 7. Mayor Jones suggested the date of February 18 for submission of a plan. Council Member Kennedy pointed out that there needed to be guidelines set as far as residency requirements and the length of time a candidate must have lived in a certain district before running for office and the terms of the office should be considered. Mayor Pro Tem Turner inquired if there was any support for pure single member districts among the Council Members. No one indicated an interest in this. Mrs. Turner continued by stating that her conclusion was that the Council would support a modified plan and she felt that a black could be elected if he ran at large. She stated that there should be enough at large places that the Anglos and the Mexican Americans could elect a black if they so desired. Minutes Special Council Meeting February 7, 1983 Page 9 Council Member Dumphy expressed the opinion that the Council needs to know if the Plaintiffs are definitely in favor of only a pure single member district plan and suggested that the MALDEF attorney state immediately whether or not he will accept anything but a pure single member district plan. He suggested that the staff prepare for the Council a report on the types of modified plans for elections that other cities in the State have. Mayor Jones suggested that Texas Municipal League might have this information. Council Member Dumphy stated that the 5-3-1 plan is not the plan other cities in this state have because they primarily have a 4-4-1 plan. Mayor Pro Tem Turner inquired of Mr. Hall procedures for establishing districts and inquired if anyone on the Council had any problem with increasing the number of Council Members to nine. Most of the Council Members indicated they had no objection to this. Mayor Pro Tem Turner referred to the 4-4-1 plan as a good compromise because everyone in the City could elect a majority of the Council under such a plan. Further discussion followed on additional meetings and it was the Council's consensus that the meeting to be held following the meeting on Wednesday should be conducted on Friday, February 11, 1983 at 4:00 p.m. Council Member Gulley suggested that this be an informal setting, possibility at the Convention Center to allow for the display of maps. There being no further business to come before the Council at this time, on motion by Council Member Gulley, seconded by Council Member Dumphy and passed unanimously, the Special Council Meeting was recessed at 6:48 p.m., February 7, 1983. *o*o*o*o*o*o*o*o*o*o*o*o RESPONSE OF COUNCILMAN CLIF'FZARSKY TO THE COURTS DECISION IN CIVIL ACTION NO. C-81-227 The decision we are considering today points out that the 1970 Charter Revisions, which direct present election methods, was mandated by vote of 59% of all voters and 54% of voters in precincts having a majority of Mexican American voters. I do not believe that the Mexican American voters of today would have any less interest than before in determining how they would like to have the elections determined in their City. In 1970 the population was 45.6% minority Mexican American and Blacks and 53.1% Anglo. In 1980 Mexican American and Blacks was 51.7% and Anglo 47.4%, and Mexican Americans have 38% of the cities total reg- istered voters and Blacks have 5% of the cities registered voters. Some organiza- tions have voiced support for single member districts, and perhaps that would be the preference of a majority of the voters. The City Council has stated publicly its willingness to let.the citizens decide how they prefer their representatives to be elected. It is obvious that tremendous progress has been made through the Charter Revision in 1970 where quasi single member districts were formed and the system was overwhelmingly approved by the electorate. During the period from 1971 to 1981 a total of 36 councilmanic positions were subject to election. Mexican Americans were elected to 12 of these (33%). In addition six positions were filled by•Blacks (16.6%). Thus during the most recent eleven year period minority representatives have comprised 50% of the City Council positions, even though the minority populations, and percentage of registered voters was less on aerage during the same period of time. Also two of three vacancies which occured on the City Council between 1971 and 1981 were filled by appointment of Mexican Americans. During the period from 19/31 through 1981, 70 (34%) of the 216 1. candidates for the City Council were Mexican American. During the period from 1971 through 1981, 48 (34%) of the 142 candidates were Mexican Americans. Most impressive is the fact that 45% of all successful candidates during the past eleven years have received a majority vote from Mexican American voters. Under no construction ofthe facts can it be said that candidates who receive a majority of the Mexican American vote are not being elected to the City Council. The decision adequately covers and acknowledges the increase of employ- ment by the City of Mexican Americans in all levels and the decrease in Anglo employment in most levels. It is well established that Mexican Americans within the City are satisfied with the services which they are being provided. It is also without question that between 1969 and 1981 the City has expended substantial money for the benefit of those areas of the City in .which the Mexican American population is most densly concentrated, with expenditure of over 15 million for street improvements alone, far more than any other area in the City. It is also shown that the most dense area of the Mexican American population has its share or more of fire stations, City Transit Service, Child Health Facilities, Parks and Paving programs. There is no evidence and no contention that Mexican Americans have any needs that the City has not been responsive to. The Mexican Americans in this city could have elected every candidate run- ning for office if as many as 50% of their registered number turned out to vote and voted as a block. The demonstration of that power is well known and acknow- ledged, as Tony Canales testified in the trial to the potential in County, State 2. and Federal elections, and as Governor Mark White also acknowledges. The conclusion of the Court that the Mexican Americans of Corpus Christi have less opportunity than the Anglo citizens to participate in the political process and particularly to elect representatives of their choice in my poinion is not supported by the evidence or the facts. The Court calls the evidence a subtle picture, but it appears so subtle as to be imperceivable. It appears that the Court is persuaded that the success of minority candidates at the polls is not sufficient evidence to eliminate the possibility of voter dilution, and the ruling obviously concludes that there is a vote dilution. In the decision of the Fifth Circuit Court, which is our appelate court in this case the Court has given some helpful guidelines to understand what constitutes voting dilutions in the case of David V. Garrision. "Dilution is an elusive concept. It cannot be proven by mathematics alone. When a majority of voters, and the successful governing authority elected by the majority, simply ignore the governmental needs of a substantial minority of the voters and remains arrogantly unresponsive to the voting strength of that minority, there has been a dilution of those votes that violates the United States Constitution." 553 F.2d at 925 There has been no such ignoring or unresponsiveness in Corpus Christi, also as recognized by the trial court in the services provided, and a 1980 poll indicating 75.6% of Mexican Americans say Corpus Chrisit is becoming a better place in which to live. "The Courts must be careful to upset the legislative plan adopted by the people only when the Constitution clearly dictates that such a plan is unlawful." 553 F.2d at 926 The Court acknowledges that there is no constitutional violation. 3. "To enfranchise the diluted minority, care must be taken not to disen- franchise the majority. An action with this result merely replaces one evil with another. To replace an at -large system with serveral single member districts invites variance from the perfect one person, one vote goal, and forever compart- mentalizes the electorate, reinforces the block voting syndrome, and prevents members of a minority class from ever exercising influence on the political system beyond the bounds of their single member districts. They remain forever a minority in their representative influence." 553 F.2d at 928 "The constitution does not require that minority voters elect at least some candidates of their choice, regardless of their precentage turnout." 553 F.2d at 930-931 I do not disagree with the law which applies to this case, but it is my opinion that the decision fails to meet the requirements established by the Appelate Court because the Courts' judgment must be based on specific findings of facts rather than conclusions. The case of Hendrix V. Joseph sets out the test that Federal Trail Courts must follow: "In each of these dilution cases a federal court is being asked to interject itself into a state created electoral system and to replace it with a radically different scheme because of supposed constitutional infirmities. Before engaging in such aggressive interference with what has traditionally been regarded as a state function, thorough and detailed findings on each issue that the courts have thus far found to be relevant, must be made. To allow conclusory findings that "the government is unresponsive," and that "no Black has ever been elected," to substitute for such detail would alter the balance that our constitutional system of federalism is designed to protect. 4. The decision in this case does not present thorough and detailed findings on each relevant issue, it does no more than conclude that the Mexican American citizens of Corpus Chrsiti have less opportunity than the Anglo citizens to participate in the political process and particularly to elect representatives of their choice. The Court admits this is not a classic discrimination case, which is the biggest under- statement of the opinion, but rather places all emphasis on the subtle picture of the evidence. While the court admits that a few minority candidates have been elected over the years, it fails to note or consider of any significant value that those few minorities comprised 50% of the City Councilmatic positions in the last 10 years, and rather attempts to justify the decision with the concept that the success of minority candidates at the polls does not necessarily foreclose the possibility of vote dilution. The Courts decision was derived by a look at the "totality" of the circumstances. If the circumstances are supposed to be factual then the courts decision does not meet the test becuase, under no detailed analysis of the facts can the court fairly conclude that the system denies Mexican Americans equal opportunity to participate or opportunity to elect. Such a conclusion Could not be based on a failure to elect Mexican Americans because it has produced one- third (1/3rd) of all councilmen elected, which is approximately the percentage of the cities Mexican American registered voters. It could not be based on failure to elect those for whom Mexican Americans vote because 45% of these successful candidates received a majority of Mexican American votes. It could not be based on a lack of access to slating because every slate since 1961 has included Mexican Americans and many more have run as independents, 34% ofall candidates from 1961 through 1981./t could not be based on lack of participation in the slating of can- didates, given the testimony that candidates have been suggested and supported by Tony Canales, Tom Gonzalez, Paul Montemayor, Oscar Reyna and Gabe Lozano, all 5. Mexican American leaders. It could not be supported by the conclusion that Mexican Americans, as such, are discriminated against, because evidence clearly shows cross voting between Mexican Americans and Anglos. It could not be sup- ported by findings that Mexican Americans needs are ignored by our elected officals because statistical evidence conclusivly establishes responsiveness in appointment of Mexican Americans to boards and commissions, employments, in provision of city services, and in location of public improvements. It could not be supported by claims of vestigial effects of past discriminations, because Mexican Americans register in high proportion to the number of Mexican Americans of voting age and run for office, campaign, and vote freely and in large numbers, and very effectively in County, State and tdational elections. The clear reality is that the present election system analysized as required, does not and has not deprived Mexican Americans of an equal opportunity to partic- ipate. The conclusion seems inescapable that this Courts decision aggressively inter- f ers with a City Charter electoral system approved by a majority of the voters (59%) and a majority of Mexican Americans (54%). Our present system is one that has produced representation of minorities on the City Council in than the precentage of registered minorities. The Court has not way tle system, the method of election, or the results in any way portunity to participate in the political their choice. Who does the court think it a greater number addressed in what diluted the op - process or to elect representatives of is protecting? Surely it can not be the entire Mexican American class of Corpus Christi, they indeed speak for themselves at the ballot box, and continue to do so through the voting rights they have exercised. 6. It is disappointing to see a stranger to this community, in a short four day visit, and a 2 month decision, overturn the declared preference of the Mexican Americans and other minorities, without even giving them an opportunity to voice their approval or disapproval. The usurpation by the Court of the peoples right to govern themselves, unless the Constitution or law is clearly violated, could possibly result in far worse conditions to those it proposes to help. The Court should bear heavily in mind the consequences of replacing an at large system with several single member districts which the Appelate Court warns us about: 1. Single member districts create a variance from the perfect one person, one vote goal; 2. Single member districts forever corrpartmentalzies the electorate; 3. Single member districts reinforce the block voting syndrome; 4. Single member districts prevent members of a minority class from ever exercising influence on the political system beyond the bounds of their single member districts. It appears that any benefits that may be derived from a system requiring all single member districts would be far too little to disenfranchise the class it proports to help as pointed out by the Appelate Court. We have heard about the benefits of single member districts from two members of the San Antonio City Council which were made public, one of which was invited and the other was a volunteer. I have been advised by two other members of the same Council that they consider their present system to be unproductive for good 7. I government and creates disharmony among the council members and citizens of San Antonio. I personally have no great difficulty in a modified system of single member districts, and I recouunended to this Council such a system after the report of the Committee of 16 failed to give a recommendation. It was rqy intent and purpose that the Council should recommend such a change in a Charter Amendment submission to the people. My recommendation was not seconded by any other council member and no other reconm endation was made by any other Council person. I regret that we did not take action at that time, for in all likelihood this confrontation would not have been necessary. The reason I was favorable to recommend a Charter Amendment for a modified single member district system is also a reason that the Court has expressed. The reason is not becuase the at large system is unconstitu- tional or illegal but because there is a possibility that what may happen in the future would be illegal. It is the apparent change in the last election and the possible continued method of slating candidates from the traditional method of party slating to independent slating. The party slating of the past has provided more than adequate opportunity to minority candidates, and in fact has produced a greater number of elected councilmen than the percentage of registered minority voters. If the independent slating were to continue, it might be determental to minority candidates because the cost of a campaign and the time needed to be effective would be much greater in such a large geographical area. These objections seemed sufficiently important that I wished to prevent the possibility of it happening. It could have been accomplished sooner, but it still can be done. 8. However, it was my opinion then and still is that the majority of the people in this city have spoken in preference of at large representation by council members, and therefore, that preference should be given due consideration in light of the mandate of the Court. I do not agree with the Courts reasoning and directives, but I am willing to try and reach an accord under the Courts order, rather than to immediately appeal the case. If I was legal counsel for a client in a lawsuit were money damages were at issue, and my client was a defendant, and the lower court ruled as has been done here, and given the rationale of precedent by a higher court as in this case, I would advise my client to appeal, because I believe that the higher court would follow its precedent, and overrule the lower court. I believe that this case will be reversed if it is appealed, and I believe it should be appealed because it establishes an unworthy precedent as it is. There is no evidence nor any court findings that the City is in violation of the Constitution, and I do not preceive a violation of the Amended Voters Right Act. I believe that the Appelate Court would have just as great difficulty as I did to detect the subtle illegality that the lower court found sufficient to overturn the plan adopted by a majority of the voters including a 54% majority of the minority Mexican Americans. The Trial Court found no clear violation of any law and had some difficulty with the fact that 50% of the councilmanic persons elected were minorities. I believe the Appelate Court will wonder why the Trial Court apparently gave so little weight to this very relevant fact, with its comment "A few minority candidates have been elected over the years," and "the success of minority candidates at the polls does not necessarily foreclose the possiblity of vote dilution." 9. Alk I think the Appelate Court will also consider the unprecedented and unusual public comments by the judge of this case prior to his written decision. It is vital to us in making a decision in this landmark issue that we understand the law which governs the Tial Court and how it has been interpreted by the Appelate Court we are under, and the Supreme Court of the United States. The Fifth Circuit Court in the case of Nevett V. Sides has stated "The Constitution does not demand that each cognizable element of a constituency elect representatives in proportion to its voting strength, even consistent defeat of a group's candidates, 571 F.2d 216 The Supreme Court standing alone, does not cross constitutional bounds. of the United States has addressed the issue in Whitcomb V. Chavis, where a minority class was under represented because the proportion of legislators in a certain area was less than the proportion of population. The Supreme Court said that a racial group is not entitled to representation merely because it is numerous enough to command at least some representation. This approach would make it difficult to reject claims of democrats, republicans, or members of any political organization. There are also union oriented workers, the university community, religious or ethnic groups occupying identifiable areas or our heterogeneous cities and urban areas. Indeed it would be difficult for a l eat many, if not most, multi -member districts to survive analysis under such view. 10. If the Fifth Circuit Court and the United States Supreme Court do not require that there be any representation in a particular ethnic or geographic area, it seems quite likely that they would see the situation in Corpus Christi to be in very good condition, where for the past eleven years 45% of all Council positions have been filled by minority Mexican Americans and Blacks. If the Appelate Court follows its own and the U.S. Supreme Court directives, I believe they will be very reluctant to upset the peoples preference, for I believe they subscribe to the principles that this country is still governed for and by the people. I have a great deal of reluctance to superimpose my preference for a modified single member election system upon an electorate that has acted responsibly for the interest and benefit of the whole community, and particularly in the interest of minorities, but I believe a greater good will be derived through an attempt to find a system that will protect minority voting rights in the future, especially in the probability of independent slating. I am willing to agree to a modified system of single member districts that will equal the positions elected at large and I believe there should be sufficient number of positions to insure adequate representation of minorities, and the mayoral position elected at large. If such a compromise is not acceptable to the Plaintiffs and the the Trial Court, I recom- mend the case be appealed. To do any less in my opinion would be arrogant inter- ference by this Council into the rights of the people we are supposed to represent, as dictated by our Charter, and as voiced overwhelmingly by the majority of voters including the class of plaintiffs who voted by a majority of 54% for our present at large election system. I offered this solution before the lawsuit was filed and I still believe it will serve all citizens best under the present cir- cumstances. 11.