Chapman v. Nicholson - 579 F. Supp. 1504 (N.D. Ala. 1984)

Rule:

In the early 1970's a line of circuit court cases developed a "results" test for determining voting dilution violations. Under this test, a violation could be proven either by a showing of (1) intentional or purposeful discrimination or (2) by a showing that the statute or state action in question resulted in a denial to minorities of equal access to the electoral process.

Facts:

Since 1946, Jasper, Alabama has been governed by a City Commission consisting of three members elected by the voters of the city at large. On June 1981, the electorate of the city voted to change its form of government to the mayor-alderman form. After the elections, an action was filed in state court seeking a declaratory judgment as to when the officers under the new form were to be elected and to take office. The Supreme Court decided on the matter. This voter dilution case commenced prior to the decision of the Supreme Court of Alabama. The action has been certified as a class action where plaintiffs, Larry Chapman et al., represent all the black citizens of Jasper. Plaintiffs sought determination that the City of Jasper's at-large system of electing city officials discriminates against black persons and as such violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended in 1982, 42 U.S.C. § 1973. The plaintiffs prayed that the court direct the holding of an immediate special election, that the city be districted, and that aldermen be elected from and by districts. Since the evidence in this case was sketchy and skimpy. and no expert testimony has been offered to assist the court in its analysis of the limited evidence, the court, thus, will first make findings of the underlying facts and then relate these findings to the Zimmer criteria.

Issue:

Should the plaintiff’s voter dilution case be granted?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that plaintiffs' failure to demonstrate a lack of access to the political process or an unresponsiveness to the minority interests weighs heavily against an inference of either intentional discrimination or a finding that the total circumstances of the electoral process have the result or effect of denying a racial minority an equal chance to participate in the electoral process. The court further held that even assuming that the state has a tenuous policy underlying a preference for at-large voting, this alone would be insufficient to make out a case under Zimmer. Thus, in the absence of substantial evidence against the defendants on the other factors, a judgment in plaintiffs' favor on these factors alone would fly in the face of the statutory proviso that nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population. The Court ruled that if Congress had intended that municipalities in all events be districted so as to allow for elections within such districts by protected groups it could have perhaps so provided. However, the Congress did not do so. Therefore, the court concluded that plaintiffs' evidence was insufficient under both an intentional discrimination analysis and a results analysis. A judgment was entered for the defendants.