Dillard v. Chilton County Board of Education
1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12808, 699 F. Supp. 870 (1988)
Rule of Law:
A federal court may approve a settlement proposing a cumulative voting scheme as a remedy for a Section 2 Voting Rights Act violation, even if the minority population is slightly below the theoretical 'threshold of exclusion,' if the 'totality of the circumstances' indicates it provides a realistic opportunity for minority voters to elect candidates of their choice.
Facts:
- Black citizens of Chilton County, Alabama, historically faced barriers to electing candidates of their choice.
- Chilton County, with a total population of 30,610 (11.86% black) and a dispersed black population, utilized an at-large election system for its five-member County Commission and five-member Board of Education.
- The at-large system featured countywide voting for numbered posts and a majority-vote requirement in primary elections, which systematically diluted minority voting strength.
- Racially polarized voting was prevalent in Chilton County, making it extremely difficult for black voters to elect their preferred representatives under the existing system.
- To remedy the demonstrated inability of black voters to elect their candidates, a new electoral structure featuring a seven-member commission and board, elected by cumulative voting, was proposed.
- Under the proposed cumulative voting system, each voter would receive seven votes to distribute among candidates as desired, without numbered posts or majority-vote requirements, thereby enhancing minority voting power.
Procedural Posture:
- Black citizens of Chilton County, Alabama, initiated two lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama (as part of the broader Dillard cases).
- The lawsuits alleged that the county's at-large election system for the Chilton County Commission and Board of Education violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
- The Chilton County Commission and Board of Education admitted that their at-large system violated Section 2.
- The parties (plaintiffs, commission, and school board) subsequently proposed a settlement that included implementing a cumulative voting scheme.
- Several members of the plaintiff class filed objections to this proposed settlement, arguing it was inadequate and proposing an alternative single-member districting plan.
- United States Magistrate John L. Carroll, acting as a special master, conducted a hearing on the proposed settlement and the objections, receiving testimony from both proponents and objectors.
- Following the hearing, Magistrate Carroll recommended to the district court that the settlement be approved in both cases.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a proposed settlement incorporating a cumulative voting scheme for county commission and board of education elections an acceptable remedy for an admitted Section 2 Voting Rights Act violation, especially when some plaintiff class members object to it?
Opinions:
Majority - Myron H. Thompson
Yes, a proposed settlement incorporating a cumulative voting scheme is an acceptable remedy for the admitted Section 2 Voting Rights Act violation. The court's primary duty in evaluating a class-action settlement is to ensure it is "fair, reasonable and adequate," and not illegal or against public policy, as held in Piambino v. Bailey and United States v. City of Alexandria. A Section 2 violation under the 'results' theory, as clarified by Thornburg v. Gingles, requires showing that, under the "totality of the circumstances," plaintiffs lack an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect candidates of their choice. This assessment hinges on two preconditions: first, the existence of racially polarized voting (which is admitted here); and second, the potential for the minority group to elect representatives in the absence of the challenged electoral feature. To assess this potential, the court applies the concept of 'threshold of exclusion,' which is the minimum percentage of the vote that will guarantee the winning of a seat even under the most unfavorable circumstances. For the current at-large system, the threshold is over 50%, which significantly exceeds Chilton County's 11.86% black population, demonstrating vote dilution. For the proposed seven-seat cumulative voting system, the threshold of exclusion is 12.5% plus (calculated as 1/(1 + number of seats)). While the black population (11.86%) is slightly below this theoretical threshold, the court emphasizes that the threshold is a guideline, not an automatic cutoff, and a "searching practical evaluation of 'past and present reality'" must consider the "totality of the circumstances." Given that the black population approaches the threshold and considering the historical context of Alabama's legislative schemes designed to diminish black voting strength, the court finds that cumulative voting offers a realistic opportunity for black voters to elect candidates of their choice. Furthermore, cumulative voting is not prohibited by federal law or public policy. The objectors' alternative, a single-member districting plan, was deemed unfeasible due to the dispersed black population, which made it impossible to create a majority-black district while adhering to the one-person, one-vote requirement, as established in Chapman v. Meier.
Analysis:
This case is significant as it affirms the judicial preference for settlement in class action lawsuits, particularly in complex voting rights cases, and provides a clear framework for evaluating proposed remedies under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. It highlights the flexibility of federal courts in crafting equitable solutions, endorsing cumulative voting as a viable remedy even when traditional single-member districts are impracticable due to demographic realities. The ruling underscores that the 'threshold of exclusion' is a valuable analytical tool, but its application must be contextualized within the 'totality of the circumstances' to avoid mechanical interpretation and ensure a practical, effective remedy for vote dilution.
