Court of Appeals order), they could have produced a map with
considerably less than 15 wards containing black majorities.
They could conceivably have gerrymandered most of the blacks
in the "border wards" into wards with white majorities and
ended up with a relatively few solid black wards in the inner
city and near west side. But no way has been suggested how the
City Council could have created more than 16 wards with a
black majority in a city containing 32.7% blacks, many of whom
are scattered through white areas which must necessarily
constitute white wards.
This statistical impasse renders the plaintiffs' case with
respect to Puerto Ricans almost moot. The census figures which
became available after the map was drawn showed only 49,500
persons in this category, not more than half of whom would be
adults eligible to vote. A proper ward under the 1970 census
figures was designed to contain 66,582 persons, give or take
1/2% (although the Supreme Court would now apparently tolerate
considerably more deviation under the Gaffney decision, supra
p. 533, and its companion White et al. v. Regester et al.,
412 U.S. 755, 93 S.Ct. 2332, 37 L.Ed.2d 314 (1973)). Plaintiffs'
Exhibit KK-2 demonstrates that these Puerto Ricans are
scattered over a population area which must consist of at least
three and perhaps four wards. Hence there is no theory by which
they could constitute a majority in any single ward. There is
also practically no direct evidence of any special attention
being given to this minority group, with the exception of the
31st Ward boundary, and this evidence does not constitute clear
or convincing proof that its voting strength was minimized in
any significant way.
Plaintiffs attempted to shift their proof from the
Latin-American minority alleged in the Complaint to the
"Spanish-language" minority which is now designated in the
census figures. However, they did not attempt to amend their
complaint nor to add a plaintiff who represents this group as
distinguished from Latin Americans. Furthermore the evidence
concerning the Spanish language group reveals that, although
totalling about 80,000 persons, it contains an unknown number
of aliens, and it is so scattered as to constitute a minority
in any ward, unless perhaps a special ward were to be drawn to
accommodate this group. This is not necessary to satisfy the
Court of Appeals' test quoted on page 532, above. Cf. Ferrell
et al. v. State of Oklahoma et al., 339 F. Supp. 73 (W.D.Okla.
1972); aff'd Ferrell v. Hall, 406 U.S. 939, 92 S.Ct. 2045, 32
L.Ed.2d 328 (1972). We find and conclude that plaintiffs'
evidence concerning the Spanish-language group is not relevant
to the pleadings or to the Court of Appeals mandate and in any
event fails to prove any grounds for relief.
Plaintiffs' solution to the alleged discrimination is to
throw out the entire 1970 map and start anew, in court. This
goes too far, under our findings. The City Council's 1970 map
complies fully with equality of representation (one-man,
one-vote) and, generally, with compactness and other valid
objectives. Only one ward, the 7th, has been shown to have
been drawn to intentionally create a white majority where a
black majority had previously existed, and most of the
excluded blacks were apparently moved into the 8th Ward.
Plaintiffs' other contentions are concerned either with
boundaries made for justifiable reasons or which did not
change the voting strength of any minority group represented
by plaintiffs to any significant degree. Therefore plaintiffs
should now suggest a solution to the 7th Ward boundaries which
will not result in invidious discrimination and will not
change the racial majority of the other wards which we have
found to be valid.
The defendants should also present their own suggestion for
this area, particularly since a new map for the 1975 elections
is now in the process of being drawn. We also see no reason
why some sort of proportional representation could
not be adopted for the 7th Ward, if necessary, although this
point has not been argued (cf. White et al. v. Regester et
al., supra p. 536; Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124, 91 S.Ct.
1858, 29 L.Ed.2d 363 (1971)). Finally, if it appears that the
solution might change the representation in all or part of the
7th Ward, a special election may be necessary.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.