African American Voting Rights Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Villa

Eighth Circuit

African American Voting Rights Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Villa

999 F.2d 1301, 1993 WL 287820

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedAugust 4, 1993

DocketNo. 92-3826

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 999 F.2d 1301 (African American Voting Rights Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Villa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

African American Voting Rights Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Villa, 999 F.2d 1301, 1993 WL 287820 (8th Cir. 1993).

Pincite

Opinions

MAGILL, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs-appellants appeal from the district court’s¹ order granting summary judg[1302]*1302ment to defendants-appellees, the Mayor of the City of St. Louis (the City), the President of the Board of Aldermen, and the Board of Aldermen. Appellants brought this action claiming the City’s redistricting ordinance which established ward boundary lines for selecting aldermen and for selecting political party committees violated § 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the First, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. We affirm.²

Appellants claim the district court erred by: (1) applying the affirmative defense of sustained proportional representation to the § 2 claim; (2) measuring proportional representation by comparing the minority group’s percentage of the voting age population to the minority group’s percentage of elected representatives; (3) finding the City’s African-American community controls twelve wards and is thus proportionally represented; (4) finding the City’s African-American community has had a sustained history of electoral success evidenced by proportional representation throughout the 1970s and 1980s; and (5) holding there are no special circumstances showing the African-American community’s sustained electoral success does not accurately reflect the community’s ability to elect its preferred representatives.

We find no error of law or clearly erroneous findings of fact in the district court’s well-reasoned memorandum, and an opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.

Before: RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, MeMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, FAGG, BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, MAGILL, BEAM, LOKEN, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Nov. 1, 1993.

The suggestion for rehearing en banc is denied. Judge McMillian would grant the suggestion.

The petition for rehearing by the panel is also denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MAGILL, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs-appellants appeal from the district court’s¹ order granting summary judg[1302]*1302ment to defendants-appellees, the Mayor of the City of St. Louis (the City), the President of the Board of Aldermen, and the Board of Aldermen. Appellants brought this action claiming the City’s redistricting ordinance which established ward boundary lines for selecting aldermen and for selecting political party committees violated § 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the First, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. We affirm.²

Appellants claim the district court erred by: (1) applying the affirmative defense of sustained proportional representation to the § 2 claim; (2) measuring proportional representation by comparing the minority group’s percentage of the voting age population to the minority group’s percentage of elected representatives; (3) finding the City’s African-American community controls twelve wards and is thus proportionally represented; (4) finding the City’s African-American community has had a sustained history of electoral success evidenced by proportional representation throughout the 1970s and 1980s; and (5) holding there are no special circumstances showing the African-American community’s sustained electoral success does not accurately reflect the community’s ability to elect its preferred representatives.

We find no error of law or clearly erroneous findings of fact in the district court’s well-reasoned memorandum, and an opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.

Before: RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, MeMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, FAGG, BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, MAGILL, BEAM, LOKEN, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Nov. 1, 1993.

The suggestion for rehearing en banc is denied. Judge McMillian would grant the suggestion.

The petition for rehearing by the panel is also denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

999 F.2d 1301, 1993 WL 287820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/african-american-voting-rights-legal-defense-fund-inc-v-villa-ca8-1993.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack