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.